IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ADAM D. TAYLOR, 

 Case No. 2:18-cv-447 

 Petitioner, Judge George C. Smith 

 Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

 v. 

WARDEN, NOBLE 

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, 

 Respondent. 

ORDER and 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 This is an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner 

seeks release from confinement imposed pursuant to a state-court judgment in a criminal action. 

This case has been referred to the Undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Columbus 

General Order 14-1 regarding assignments and references to United States Magistrate Judges. 

 Petitioner has filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1.) 

Upon consideration, the undersigned finds the motion to be meritorious and it is GRANTED. 

Petitioner shall be PERMITTED to prosecute this action without prepayment of fees or costs 

and judicial officers who render services in this action will do so as if costs had been prepaid. 

 This matter is before the Court on its own motion under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (“Rule 4”). Pursuant to Rule 4, the Court 

conducts a preliminary review to determine whether “it plainly appears from the face of the 

petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. . . .” if it does so 

appear, the petition must be dismissed. Id. These are the circumstances here. 
Petitioner’s pleadings are unintelligible, and the Court cannot decipher the nature of 

Petitioner’s claims. Therefore, this action is subject to dismissal under Rule 2(c) of the Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, which provides that the 

Petitioner must specify the nature of his grounds for relief and state the facts in support of each 

ground. Dismissal under Habeas Rule 2(c) is appropriate in cases where it is impossible to 

determine from the petitioner's pleadings the exact errors of fact or law raised for adjudication. 

See Rice v. Warden, No. 1:14-cv-732, 2015 WL 5299421, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 9, 2015) 

(dismissal under Rule 2(c) appropriate where pleadings contain unintelligible and conclusory 

allegations and statements) (citations omitted); Accord v. Warden, Lebanon Corr. Inst., No. 2:12-

cv-355, 2013 WL 228027, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 22, 2013) (while the court liberally construes a 

pro se prisoner's pleadings, it is not required to “conjure allegations” on the petitioner's behalf) 

(citations omitted)). “Habeas Rule 2(c) is ‘more demanding’ than Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), which 

requires in ‘ordinary civil proceedings’ that the complaint ‘provide ‘fair notice of what the 

plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” McClure v. Warden, London Corr. 

Inst., No. 1:16-cv-729, 2018 WL 1452253, at *4 (S.D. Ohio March 1, 2018) (citing Mayle v. 

Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655-56 (2005); McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 860 (1994)). “‘Notice’ 

pleading is insufficient in the habeas context, as the petitioner is expected to state facts that point 

to a real possibility of constitutional error.” Id. (citing Johnson v. Sheldon, No. 3:14-cv-1675, 

2015 WL 3650695, at *2 (N.D. Ohio June 11, 2015) (other citations omitted)). 

Recommended Disposition 

Therefore, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED

unless Petitioner resubmits his habeas petition within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS, stating the basis 

for each of his claims for relief, and the factual grounds in support. Petitioner is cautioned that 
he can comply with this Order only by separating each ground for relief and setting forth all the 

facts that support that particular claim. For ease of reference, the Clerk is DIRECTED to 

forward to Petitioner another form Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Procedure on Objections 

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen 

days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those specific 

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with supporting 

authority for the objection(s). A judge of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those 

portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is 

made. Upon proper objections, a judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or 

in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further evidence or may 

recommit this matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1). 

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and 

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the district judge review the Report 

and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of 

the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 

The parties are further advised that, if they intend to file an appeal of any adverse 

decision, they may submit arguments in any objections filed, regarding whether a certificate of 

appealability should issue. 

 s/Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

 Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

 United States Magistrate Judge