The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JEFFREY ALAN DAVIS,
Petitioner,
Case No. 2:24-cv-3925
v.
Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson
WARDEN, Pickaway Correctional
Institution,
Respondent.
ORDER
The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that pro se
Petitioner Jeffrey Alan Davis’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be
dismissed. (ECF No. 2.) Mr. Davis timely objected. (ECF No. 4.)
A litigant who is the subject of an adverse report and recommendation from a Magistrate
Judge is entitled to de novo review of those portions of the report to which proper objections are
made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The Magistrate Judge correctly explained that under § 2254(a), courts entertain writ of
habeas corpus applications “only on the grounds that [a petitioner] is in custody in violation of
the Constitution or laws or treatises of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The Sixth Circuit
has reiterated that “Ohio does not give inmates a right to parole; the [Ohio Parole] Board has
authority to grant or deny a candidate’s application at its discretion.” Bailey v. Wainwright, 951
F.3d 343, 346 (6th Cir. 2020). Thus, a petitioner cannot argue that, but for the allegedly
inaccurate description in his parole record, the Court would grant him parole. Id.
Mr. Davis makes his claim in his petition solely based on an inaccurate parole record,
which is outside the scope of § 2254 and subject to dismissal. (ECF No. 3.) The Magistrate Judge
noted, however, that Mr. Davis is not foreclosed from raising similar claims using 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. (ECF No. 2, PageID 172 (citing Bailey, 951 F.3d at 347 (“While we affirm the dismissal
of Bailey’s petition, we do so without prejudice to his filing a new claim under § 1983.”)).)
Mr. Davis’s objection is difficult to discern but begins with a “request to file under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, on the same issues filed on” his § 2254 petition. (ECF No. 4, PageID 336.)Yet at
a different point in his objection, Mr. Davis “asks permission to proceed under [§]2254 (A) and
(B)(C)” because “[t]he State Court lacks means to adduce a factual response to the claims made.”
(Id. PageID 337.) He also requests “the means and resources for use under [42 U.S.C.] [§] 1983[]
solely for the purpose of continuance of motion under 28 U.S.C. [§] 2254.” (Id. PageID 339.)
Although Mr. Davis cites § 1983, even construed liberally, his Objection makes no identifiable
claim under the statute related to his parole record. (See generally id.)
Having considered the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation de novo and Mr.
Davis’s Objection, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Report and Recommendation (ECF
No. 2) and OVERRULES Mr. Davis’s Objection (ECF No. 4). The Petition is DISMISSED
without prejudice under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. Mr. Davis may file a §
1983 action raising similar claims but needs to meet the basic pleading standards under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
Further, given the Mr. Davis paid the $5 filing fee necessary to commence this action, his
motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is DENIED AS MOOT. The Court certifies
that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good
faith and that there is no basis on which to issue a certificate of appealability. Fed. R. App. P.
22(b); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10/14/2025 s/Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
DATE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE