Mason v. Warden Noble Correctional Institution, No. 2:2014cv00075 - Document 9 (S.D. Ohio 2014)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 7 Motion for Extension of Time; denying 8 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Judge James L Graham on 3/10/14. (ds)

Download PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION TROY A. MASON, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-00075 JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM Magistrate Judge Kemp Petitioner, v. WARDEN, NOBLE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent. OPINION AND ORDER On February 13, 2014, final Judgment was entered dismissing the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. Doc. No. 6. On February 19, 2014, Petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file a request for a certificate of appealability. Doc. No. 7. This matter now is before the Court on Petitioner s March 3, 2014, Motion for a Certificate of Appealability. Doc. No. 8. For the reasons that follow, Petitioner s Motion for Extension of Time to file a request for a certificate of appealability, Doc. No. 7, is DENIED, as moot. Petitioner s March 3, 2014, Motion for a Certificate of Appealability. Doc. No. 8, also is DENIED. This case involves Petitioner s burglary conviction after a jury trial in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. In April 2012, the trial court imposed a sentence of three years incarceration. The Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Petitioner attempted to timely appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court, but his appeal initially was dismissed due to his failure to comply with S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.02(D)(1), requiring attachment of a date-stamped copy of the opinion of the Court of Appeals. Thereafter, the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed his appeal as untimely. 1 Because the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed Petitioner s appeal as untimely, Petitioner procedurally defaulted all of his claims for relief. Because Petitioner failed to show cause for this procedural default, the Court dismissed Petitioner s habeas corpus petition, concluding that he had waived all of his claims for review in these proceedings. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 4(a)(1)(A) requires the Notice of Appeal to be filed within thirty days of the judgment or order being appealed from. Petitioner filed his request for a certificate of appealability, which this Court construes as a notice of appeal, within this time. The Court therefore need not consider Petitioner s Motion for Extension of Time to file a request for a certificate of appealability, Doc. No. 7, and it is DENIED, as moot. As to Petitioner s Motion for a Certificate of Appealability. Doc. No. 8, where the Court dismisses a claim on procedural grounds, Petitioner must show that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling to obtain the certificate of appealability. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 85 (2000). Thus, there are two components to determining whether a certificate of appealability should issue when a claim is dismissed on procedural grounds: one directed at the underlying constitutional claims and one directed at the district court's procedural holding. The Court may first resolve the issue whose answer is more apparent from the record and arguments. Id. This Court is unpersuaded that reasonable jurists would debate whether this Court was correct in its dismissal of petitioner's claims as procedurally defaulted. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Bonilla v. Hurley, 370 F.3d 494, 497 (6th Cir. 2004), has held that the Ohio Supreme Court s denial of an appeal under these circumstances 2 fails the test set forth under Maupin v. Smith, 785 F.2d 135, 138 (2004). Therefore, petitioner's request for a certificate of appealability, Doc. No. , is DENIED. His Motion for Extension of Time to file a request for a certificate of appealability, Doc. No. 7, and it is DENIED, as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: March 10, 2014 s/James L. Graham __________________________________ JAMES L. GRAHAM United States District Judge 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.