# Woods v. Warden, Warren Correctional Institution

> District Court, S.D. Ohio · March 28, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10384359

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Ohio
- **Decided:** March 28, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10384359

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

FRANKLIN WOODS,

Petitioner,
Case No. 1:20-cv-618
v.
JUDGE DOUGLAS R. COLE
WARDEN, WARREN Magistrate Judge Merz
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are Petitioner Franklin Woods’s Motion to Alter or Amend Its
Oct 12, 2023 Judgment (Doc. 48) and Magistrate Judge Merz’s November 8, 2023,
Report and Recommendation (R&R, Doc. 49), which recommends that the Court deny
the motion. For the reasons stated briefly below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (Doc.
49), OVERRULES Woods’s Objections (Doc. 52), and DENIES Woods’s Motion to
Alter or Amend Its Oct 12, 2023 Judgment (Doc. 48).
BACKGROUND1
Woods is an inmate at Chillicothe Correctional Institution. He is serving an
indeterminate sentence of 32.5 years to life for a conviction on state charges arising
from having repeatedly engaged in sexual misconduct with his underage daughter
throughout her childhood. (Doc. 1, #64; State Ct. R., Doc. 7, #399–402). On November
10, 2016, an Ohio state court jury convicted him of first-degree felony rape and five

1 For a detailed account of the relevant background, see the Court’s previous Opinion and
Order. (Doc. 46, #1846–50).
counts of third-degree gross sexual imposition. (Id. at #169–90). After unsuccessfully
seeking appellate review of his convictions, as well as of the trial court’s earlier denial
of his motion to suppress his confession, State v. Woods, 122 N.E.3d 586 (Ohio Ct.

App. 2018), Woods timely filed his § 2254 habeas corpus petition in this Court on
August 10, 2020. (Doc. 1). In it, he challenged the state courts’ rulings on his motion
to suppress and his convictions. In all, he raised five specific claims of error: that
(1) the motion to suppress should have been granted pursuant to Missouri v. Seibert,
542 U.S. 600 (2004); (2) Woods’s alleged assertion of his right to remain silent was
not respected; (3) the state court made erroneous factual findings about the
inculpatory statement Woods made to Amber Stamper, a children’s services

employee; (4) Stamper and another children’s services employee, Randy Thompson,
with whom Woods met prior to being charged, should have been classified as law
enforcement officers (thus making it more likely that Miranda warnings were
necessary during their questioning of him); and (5) Woods’s convictions were not
supported by sufficient evidence and were against the manifest weight of the
evidence.2 (Doc. 1, #58, 68–73).

Following the filing of the state court record, (Doc. 7), and the State’s Return
of Writ, (Doc. 8), the Magistrate Judge reviewed the petition on the merits and
recommended dismissing it with prejudice, (Docs. 16, 24). Armed with all the parties’
briefing and objections, the Court then issued its Opinion and Order dismissing

2 Although Woods did not list the fifth claim of error as a separate basis for habeas corpus
relief, the Court construed his allegations that his convictions lacked sufficient evidentiary
support and were against the manifest weight of the evidence as sufficient to raise a separate
claim of error. (Doc. 46, #1849 n.5).
Woods’s petition with prejudice on October 12, 2023. (Doc. 46). The Court agreed with
the Magistrate Judge that under the proper Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) standard of review, the Court sitting in habeas could

not overturn the state court’s rulings on Woods’s motion to suppress and his
convictions. Namely, this Court found that the state court made reasonable factual
findings and reached legal determinations not contrary to clearly established
Supreme Court precedent in affirming the denial of Woods’s motion to suppress. (Doc.
46, #1854–62). Similarly, the Court agreed with the Magistrate Judge that the state
court reasonably applied the law and made reasonable factual findings in holding
that Woods’s convictions were supported by sufficient evidence. (Id. at #1862–66).

Because those rulings dispensed with Woods’s claims of error, the Court dismissed
the § 2254 petition with prejudice and entered judgment the same day. (Id. at #1867;
Doc. 47).
Within the 28-day timeline set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e),
on November 7, 2023, Woods moved to alter or to amend the Court’s judgment based
on a claim that manifest injustice would result were the judgment to stand as is. (Doc.

48, #1870–71). In his motion, Woods largely rehashes his arguments,
characterizations of the state court record, and theories as to why his motion to
suppress should have been granted and why his convictions were not supported by
sufficient evidence. (Id. at #1871–95, 1897–902). But that is not the entire story, as
Woods also raises two new arguments not previously properly before the undersigned.
First, Woods argues that the Court purportedly overlooked a transcript of his
interrogation that he believes reveals that his right to remain silent was violated
when Chaffins kept questioning him. (Id. at #1895–97). Second, Woods raises a new
claim of error related to the state of Ohio’s failure to present evidence at his trial

consonant with the bill of particulars in his case. (Id. at #1902–06). The Magistrate
Judge issued an R&R the next day explaining that Woods’s motion should be denied
because it simply reiterates arguments thoroughly considered by the Court and
rejected. (Doc. 49, #1910). Woods objected by amplifying his arguments about the
Court’s purported overlooking of a transcript of his interrogation and his newly raised
bill-of-particulars claim. (Doc. 52).
The matters are ripe for the Court’s review.

LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), “district courts review a report
and recommendation de novo after a party files a timely objection.” Bates v. Ohio
Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., No. 1:22-cv-337, 2023 WL 4348835, at *1 (S.D. Ohio July 5,
2023). But that review extends only to “any portion to which a proper objection was

made.” Id. (citation omitted). In response to such an objection, “the district court may
accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or
return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(3)) (cleaned up). By contrast, if a party makes only a general objection, that
“has the same effect[] as would a failure to object.” Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Hum.
Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). A litigant must identify each issue in the
R&R to which he objects with sufficient clarity for the Court to identify it, or else the
litigant forfeits the Court’s de novo review of the issue. Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373,
380 (6th Cir. 1995) (“The objections must be clear enough to enable the district court
to discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious.”).

That said, Woods is proceeding pro se. A pro se litigant’s pleadings are to be
construed liberally and are subject to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
filed by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972); Franklin v. Rose,
765 F.2d 82, 84–85 (6th Cir. 1985). But pro se litigants still must comply with the
procedural rules that govern civil cases. McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113
(1993). And “[t]he liberal treatment of pro se pleadings does not require the lenient
treatment of substantive law, and the liberal standards that apply at the pleading

stage do not apply after a case has progressed to the summary judgment stage.”
Johnson v. Stewart, No. 08-1521, 2010 WL 8738105, at *3 (6th Cir. May 5, 2010)
(citations omitted). For unobjected portions of the R&R, “the advisory committee
notes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) suggest that the Court still must
‘satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept
the recommendation.’” Redmon v. Noel, No. 1:21-cv-445, 2021 WL 4771259, at *1

(S.D. Ohio Oct. 13, 2021) (collecting cases).
Here, Woods moves the Court to alter its judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e). In the habeas context, a Rule 59(e) motion is not treated as a second
or successive petition, so it need not comply with the high bar set forth in 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b) for the Court consider the motion’s merits. Banister v. Davis, 140 S. Ct.
1698, 1702 (2020). Accordingly, courts analyze Rule 59(e) motions in the habeas
context under the same standard as applies to other civil suits. See Lindsey v.
Warden, No. 1:03-cv-702, 2021 WL 3046633, at *1 (S.D. Ohio July 20, 2021). “In this
circuit, a district court may alter a judgment under Rule 59 based on (1) a clear error

of law; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling law; or
(4) a need to prevent manifest injustice.” Nolfi v. Ohio Ky. Oil Corp., 675 F.3d 538,
551–52 (6th Cir. 2012). But “it is well-established in the Sixth Circuit that a Rule
59(e) … motion … does not allow the unhappy litigant to reargue the case.’” Prows v.
City of Oxford, No. 1:22-cv-693, 2023 WL 7384684, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 8, 2023)
(cleaned up); accord Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008) (“Rule
59(e) ... ‘may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present

evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.’” (quoting 11
Wright & Miller, Federal Prac. & Proc. § 2810.1 (2d ed. 1995))). In other words, a
party may not use Rule 59(e) as the vehicle to raise a new claim for the first time.
Dean v. City of Bay City, 239 F. App’x 107, 111 (6th Cir. 2007).
LAW AND ANALYSIS

While Woods filed nominally labeled objections to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R,
they are the same arguments he has raised and re-raised throughout this litigation.
(See generally Doc. 52 (citing to and reiterating arguments presented in his Rule 59(e)
motion)). But as the Court explained in its previous Opinion and Order, “attempts to
reiterate what has already been argued to the Magistrate Judge do not constitute
proper objections to an R&R.” (Doc. 46, #1857 (citing Brown v. Hamilton Cnty., 1:19-
cv-969, 2022 WL 2816266, at *2 (S.D. Ohio July 19, 2022))). So the Court will review
the Magistrate Judge’s R&R for clear error—and the Court can see none.
As Woods acknowledges, his only basis for seeking reconsideration from the

Court is his argument that manifest injustice will result. (Doc. 52, #1916). But he
proffers no reason to conclude that the Court had strayed from the proper analysis
under the correct level of deference owed to the state courts under AEDPA. For
example, the Court already explained why Woods’s insistence he was under custodial
arrest before Deputy Sheriff Brian Chaffins began his interrogation, (Id. at #1917–
20), does not render the state courts’ contrary factual findings unreasonable or their
opposing legal analysis contrary to clearly established Supreme Court law, (Doc. 46,

#1857–59). Woods can choose to “re-plow[] the same ground,” but that is not the
proper use of Rule 59(e) motion—he should instead “register[] [his] disagreement []
by way of an appeal. Dates v. HSBC, No. 1:24-cv-81, 2024 WL 860918, at *9 (S.D.
Ohio Feb. 29, 2024); Prows v. City of Oxford, No. 1:22-cv-693, 2023 WL 7384684, at
*5 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 8, 2023) (“[T]he Court declines [Woods’s Rule 59(e)] invitation to
reconsider the same arguments. [He] may be correct that the Court erred. But his

remedy for any such error lies in appeal, not further attempts to litigate here.”).
Simply, the Court agrees with the R&R that “[f]urther extensive writing on the[]
issues [Woods has repeated at length] is not warranted.” (Doc. 49, #1910).
That said, Woods also appears to raise something of a new challenge to the
Court’s decision not to disturb the state court’s determination that Chaffins’
interrogation of Woods did not violate Woods’s right to remain silent. Specifically, he
now maintains that the Court did not have the proper transcript of that interrogation
before it. (Doc. 52, #1917–18). But, while this argument is new, it is also untimely.
Essentially, Woods wishes to object under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) to

three prior decisions the Magistrate Judge issued denying Woods’s request to expand
the state court record, in which he sought approval to file unauthenticated transcripts
that purport to record his interrogation with Chaffins. (Doc. 27; Doc. 30; Doc. 36). But
Woods never objected to these decisions, and the time for doing so (14 days from the
entry of such orders) has long since passed—the last of these decisions was entered
on June 2, 2022, (Doc. 36, #1805). Woods has not explained this significant delay, so
the Court need not consider this tardy attempt to dispute the proper scope of the state

court record.
But even if the Court were inclined to do so, Woods’s argument provides no
reason to disturb the Magistrate Judge’s earlier rulings. As the Magistrate Judge
explained, (Doc. 36, #1805), the state court record was filed on October 13, 2020, (Doc.
7), and the merits of Woods’s petition were first considered in full on February 23,
2021, (Doc. 16), and again on April 2, 2021, (Doc. 24). Woods did not raise his concerns

about the scope of the record until April 14, 2021, (see Doc. 25, #1622; Doc. 25-1)—a
full six months after the record was filed and on the day the merits of the case and
the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition became ripe for this Court’s review,
(see Doc. 24, #1620). There is nothing clearly erroneous or contrary to law about the
Magistrate Judge’s denial of the motions to expand the record: not only are Woods’s
proffered transcripts unauthenticated and therefore not competent evidence of what
transpired during Chaffin’s interrogation of Woods, but the proper time for his raising
this concern with the Court was before its consideration of the merits. (Doc. 36,
#1805). Accordingly, Woods fails to persuade the Court that it should reconsider its

rulings on the merits of his § 2254 petition on account of this improper, untimely
attempt to challenge the scope of the evidentiary record.3
Finally, to the extent that Woods argues that the Court should reconsider its
decision on his insufficiency of the evidence claim because the state’s evidence against
him did not match the bill of particulars filed in his state case, the Court declines the
invitation to do so. This is because a claim that the state varied the evidence proven
at trial from the allegations set forth in a bill of particulars is a distinct legal claim

from a challenge to one’s conviction on the grounds that it is not supported by
sufficient evidence. Gebory v. Brigano, 489 F.3d 752, 762–64 (6th Cir. 2007) (exploring
the distinct legal analyses applicable to the two claims and analyzing both only
because the petitioner had made both arguments in his direct appeal, habeas petition,
and throughout the federal habeas proceedings). And this is the first time in this
litigation Woods has properly made an argument directed at the variation between

the evidence raised at trial and the allegations in the bill of particulars, rather than
merely contesting that he could not have been proven guilty of the charged conduct

3 Furthermore, even assuming the Court could review these unauthenticated transcripts,
none of them present an account of Chaffins’s interrogation of Woods that meaningfully
differs from the transcription of the interaction the Court had copied from the state appellate
court’s decision. (Compare Doc. 25-1, #1692, 1701, Doc. 35, #1784, 1794, with Doc. 46, #1860
(quoting State v. Woods, 122 N.E.3d 586, 599 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018))). So the Court again
concludes Woods has no valid basis for asking the Court to re-traipse through its extensive
analysis of his claims of error. Simply, these unauthenticated (but not materially different)
transcripts would not alter the Court’s analysis.
beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence admitted at trial.4 (See Doc. 1, #53—
54, #57-58; Doc. 7, #330—38; Doc. 19, #1600—02; Doc. 25, #1661—65, 1668-72). But as
the Court explained above, a Rule 59(e) motion is not a proper vehicle for raising a
new claim of error for the first time. Dean, 239 F. App’x at 111. Accordingly, this
newly raised claim provides no basis for this Court to reconsider its prior analysis.®
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (Doc. 49), OVERRULES Woods’s
Objections (Doc. 52), and DENIES Woods’s Motion to Alter or Amend Its Oct 12, 2023
Judgment (Doc. 48).6
SO ORDERED.
Te.
March 28, 2024 \
DATE DOUGLAS R. COLE \
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4 The Court acknowledges that Woods raised a version of this argument in his Motion for
Summary Judgment, (Doc. 38, #1809-16), that the Court denied as moot, (Doc. 46, #1866—
67). But as the Magistrate Judge observed, that motion was “untimely by almost two years”
and “was filed without leave of Court long after the [petition] had been fully briefed.” (Doc.
AO, #1822). In other words, Woods’s first valid attempt to make this argument did not come
until his Rule 59(e) motion.
5 Of course, Woods’s failure to raise this claim in his first federal habeas suit does not
necessarily foreclose his attempting to have a federal court hear his new bill-of-particulars
claim of error in another habeas proceeding. That said, were Woods to do so, he would face
an uphill battle in explaining why that court should reach the merits of the claim: he will
likely need to explain how he can overcome AEDPA’s high bar to the filing of second or
successive habeas petitions, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), its statute of limitations, id. § 2244(d), and
the other doctrines of exhaustion and procedural default, (see Doc. 7, #330—38).
8 Woods did not ask the Court to reconsider its prior decision to deny him a certificate of
appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). (Doc. 46, #1866). In light of the Court’s decision to
adhere to its prior analysis without amendment, it likewise declines to disturb that ruling.
10

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10384359. Public record. Not legal advice.