The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
JAMES E. BROWN, :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : Case No. 1:17-cv-583
:
WARDEN, Chillicothe Correctional : Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins
Institution :
:
Defendants.
:
ORDER ADOPTING REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOCS. 47 & 53),
OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (DOCS. 51 & 56), AND DENYING MOTION TO
EXPAND THE RECORD (DOC. 57)
This habeas corpus case, brought pro se by the Petitioner James E. Brown under 28
U.S.C. § 2254, is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 47) (the “Report”) and Supplemental Report and Recommendation (Doc. 53) (the
“Supplemental Report”). The Petitioner filed objections both to the Report (Doc. 51) and to
the Supplemental Report (Doc. 56). The Petitioner also filed a second Motion for Leave to
Expand the Record in which he asserts that certain documents related to his state court
postconviction petition had been misarranged by the state clerk of courts but that they were
properly included with the Petition (Doc. 57).
The Petitioner’s Motion to Expand the Record currently pending before the Court is
not well taken for reasons already covered by the Magistrate Judge in the very thorough
Report. As noted, the law in the Sixth Circuit is well settled that “the writ of habeas corpus is
not the proper means by which prisoners can challenge errors or deficiencies in state post-
conviction proceedings, . . . which address collateral matters and not the underlying conviction
giving rise to the prisoner’s incarceration.” Dickey v. Warden, Lebanon Corr. Inst., No.
1:08cv819, 2010 WL 92510, at *10 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 6, 2010) (Beckwith, J.; Black, M.J.)
(emphasis added) (citing Kirby v. Dutton, 794 F.2d 245, 247 (6th Cir. 1986); Cress v. Palmer,
484 F.3d 844, 853 (6th Cir. 2007); Roe v. Baker, 316 F.3d 557, 571 (6th Cir. 2002); Alley v. Bell,
307 F.3d 380, 386-87 (6th Cir. 2002)). The Motion to Expand the Record is accordingly
DENIED.
The Court has, likewise, carefully reviewed the comprehensive findings and
conclusions of the Magistrate Judge and has considered de novo all of the filings in this case
with particular attention to the issues as to which Petitioner has lodged objections. Having
done so, the Court determines that the recommendations in the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Supplemental Report should be adopted.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED
and the Report (Doc. 47) and Supplemental Report (Doc. 53) are ADOPTED in their
entirety. The Petition, as amended, is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim
for relief. Petitioner is DENIED a certificate of appealability, and the Court hereby certifies
to the United States Court of Appeals that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and
therefore Petitioner should not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 2, 2023 Peary Lbs
Hi efféry P. Hopkins
United States District Judge