IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

KEVIN E. JENNINGS, 

Petitioner, Case No. 2:11-CV-404

JUDGE GREGORY L. FROST

v. MAG. JUDGE NORAH MCCANN KING

WARDEN of ROSS CORRECTIONAL

INSTITUTION, 

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a

petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. However, the tendered petition,

attached to ECF No. 1, did not expressly assert any claims for relief. On May 11, 2011, the

Magistrate Judge recommended that Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis

be denied because Petitioner had paid the $5.00 filing fee. The Magistrate Judge also ordered

Petitioner to file, within thirty (30) days, a petition clearly setting forth the bases upon which

Petitioner intended to challenge his state court conviction. Petitioner was also directed to

address the issue of timeliness of the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244. Order and Report and

Recommendation, ECF No. 2. This matter is now before the Court on Petitioner’s objections to

the order and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Objection, ECF No. 4. 

Addressing the recommendation that his application for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis be denied, Petitioner explains that he paid the $5.00 filing fee only because he was

directed to do so by prison officials; he asks that he be permitted to nevertheless proceed in

forma pauperis. Petitioner also addresses the timeliness of the action. Petitioner has neither

submitted an amended petition nor articulated any grounds upon which he intends to challenge

Case: 2:11-cv-00404-GLF-NMK Doc #: 5 Filed: 09/08/11 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
his conviction. See generally, Objection.

Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts

requires that a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

(1) specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner; (2)

state the facts supporting each ground; (3) state the relief

requested; (4) be printed, typewritten, or legibly handwritten; and

(5) be signed under penalty of perjury by the petitioner or by a

person authorized to sign it for the petitioner under 28 U.S.C. §

2242

Rule 2(c). This Court cannot be expected to “conjure up” allegations on Petitioner’s behalf. 

See King v. Johns, No. 4:10cv1835, 2011 WL 1278481, at *2 (N.D. Ohio April 5, 2011) (citing

Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4 th Cir. 1985). Petitioner has wholly failed

to comply with Rule 2 and the Court is unable to proceed with this action.

Petitioner’s Objection, ECF No. 4, is DENIED. The Order and Report and

Recommendation, ECF No. 2, is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. As the $5.00 filing fee has been

paid, Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 1, is DENIED. Because

Petitioner has failed to set forth any grounds for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and has failed to

comply with Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District

Courts, this action is hereby DISMISSED. The Clerk shall enter FINAL JUDGMENT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Gregory L. Frost 

GREGORY L. FROST

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case: 2:11-cv-00404-GLF-NMK Doc #: 5 Filed: 09/08/11 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>