UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

RONALD SAUR,

Petitioner,

Civil Action 2:12-cv-895

v. Judge Gregory L. Frost

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

WARDEN, CHILLICOTHE 

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent.

ORDER

 This matter is before the Court for consideration of Petitioner’s Objection to the October

4, 2012 Order of the Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 3.) For the reasons that follow, Petitioner’s

Objections are OVERRULED. The Order of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED and

AFFIRMED. Petitioner is DIRECTED to either pay the full filing fee or submit an application

for a prisoner to proceed without prepayment of fees WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE

DATE OF THIS ORDER. Petitioner is further DIRECTED to clarify the relief he seeks

WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. Failure to comply with

the terms of this Order could result in the dismissal of this case. 

I.

On October 16, 2012, Petitioner, an inmate at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution,

initiated this action by filing a request to proceed without prepayment of fees. (ECF No. 1.) 

Petitioner did not, however, submit the application required for a prisoner or provide a certified

copy of his prison account statement, as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). 

Case: 2:12-cv-00895-GLF-EPD Doc #: 4 Filed: 03/28/13 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Petitioner also filed a “Petition for a Rule NISI Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1651(a)(b).” 

Id. at Ex. 2. According to the Petition, he seeks a Rule Nisi order because there is “no cause of

detention in the public record.” (Civil Cover Sheet, ECF No. 1-1.) Petitioner further asserts that

“there is no lawful state remedy,” because “no substantive law was invoked” in his underlying

criminal proceedings. (Petition 1, ECF No. 1-2.) 

On October 4, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order directing Petitioner to supply

the appropriate application for a prisoner to proceed without prepayment of fees, along with a

certified copy of his prison account statement. (Order 2, ECF No. 2.) The Magistrate Judge also

directed Petitioner to clarify the relief he seeks, as the Court cannot discern the nature of his

purported cause of action from his Petition. Id. at 2-3. 

On October 16, 2012, Petitioner filed an Objection to the Order of the Magistrate Judge. 

(ECF No. 3.) First, Petitioner objects to applying as a prisoner to proceed without prepayment of

fees on the grounds that he “is not a prisoner by state and federal law.” (Objection 1, ECF No.

3.) Accordingly, Petitioner maintains that he “will not file an in forma pauperis petition for a

prisoner [a]nd the federal Court may not order him to do so[,] [a]s it would lead him [] to perjure

himself, breaking the law.” Id. at 2. He asserts that he is entitled to move to proceed in forma

pauperis as a non-prisoner. Id. at 1. 

Second, Petitioner indicates that he “is not asking for habeas relief.” Id. at 3. Rather

than provide clarity as to the nature of his purported cause of action, however, Petitioner’s

objection adds to the confusion. He maintains that he seeks “[o]nly the truth of the state

involvement on the court record.” Id. Petitioner further posits that “[a] rule nisi order for the

true and lawful cause of petitioner’s detention will resolve all issues raised by the petition, and

2

Case: 2:12-cv-00895-GLF-EPD Doc #: 4 Filed: 03/28/13 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
the court.” Id. at 3.

II.

The subject Order of the Magistrate Judge involves a non-dispositive matter. Thus, the

Court applies the “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law” standard of review set forth in Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). A Magistrate Judge’s factual finding is “clearly erroneous” only

when, after reviewing the evidence, the court “is left with the definite and firm conviction that a

mistake as been committed.” United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395

(1948). A court will overturn a Magistrate Judge’s legal conclusions only where those

conclusions “contradict or ignore applicable precepts of law, as found in the Constitution,

statutes, or case precedent.” Gandee v. Glaser, 785 F.Supp. 684, 686 (S.D. Ohio 1992) (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). 

The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Order and concludes that it is neither

clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. First, Petitioner must either pay the full filing fee or

submit an application for a prisoner to proceed without prepayment of fees and a certified copy

of his prison account statement. Regardless of the term Petitioner uses to describe himself, the in

forma pauperis statute under which he moves classifies him as a “prisoner.” See 28 U.S.C.

1915(g) (“As used in this section, the term ‘prisoner’ means any person incarcerated or detained

in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for,

violations of criminal law . . . .”). Notwithstanding Petitioner’s apparent objection to the

methods by which he was adjudicated guilty of a crime, Petitioner is a “person incarcerated” in a

“facility” who is “convicted of” a “violation[] of criminal law.” See Criminal Case Detail

attached to Petition as Exhibit A, ECF No. 1-3 (reflecting that Petitioner pleaded guilty to the

3

Case: 2:12-cv-00895-GLF-EPD Doc #: 4 Filed: 03/28/13 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
indictment of felonious assault.). 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s first objection to the Order of the Magistrate Judge is

OVERRULED. Petitioner is DIRECTED to either submit an application for a prisoner to

proceed without prepayment of fees and a certified copy of his prisoner account statement, or

pay the full filing fee of $5.00 for a habeas corpus petition or $350.00 for a civil complaint, 

WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. Petitioner is cautioned

that failure to comply with the terms of this Order may result in the dismissal of this case. If

Petitioner does not comply with this Order, the Court is required to assume that he is not a

pauper, and it will: (1) assess the full amount of the filing fee; (2) dismiss the case for want of

prosecution; and (3) not reinstate the case to the Court’s active docket even if the filing fee is

then paid in full. See In re Prison Litigation Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1132 (6th Cir. 1997). 

 Second, Petitioner must provide clarity as to the relief he seeks. As currently drafted, the

Court cannot discern from the Petition the nature of the purported cause of action or what relief

Petitioner seeks. Accordingly, Petitioner’s second objection to the Order of the Magistrate Judge

is OVERRULED. Petitioner is DIRECTED to clarify the relief he seeks WITHIN THIRTY

(30) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. 

III.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s Objections to the Order of the Magistrate Judge are

OVERRULED. The Order of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. Petitioner

is DIRECTED to either pay the full filing fee or submit an in forma pauperis application by a

prisoner WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. Petitioner is

further DIRECTED to clarify the relief he seeks WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE

4

Case: 2:12-cv-00895-GLF-EPD Doc #: 4 Filed: 03/28/13 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>
DATE OF THIS ORDER. For ease of reference, the Clerk is DIRECTED to provide

Petitioner with standard blank forms for an incarcerated person to proceed without prepayment

of fees. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Gregory L. Frost 

GREGORY L. FROST

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5

Case: 2:12-cv-00895-GLF-EPD Doc #: 4 Filed: 03/28/13 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: <pageID>