UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

KIMBERLY KHAMISI, Case No. 1:18-cv-550

Petitioner,

Black, J.

vs. Bowman, M.J.

WARDEN, OHIO 

REFORMATORY FOR WOMEN, REPORT AND

Respondent. RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

(Doc. 1).1

 The petition challenges petitioner’s June 22, 2018 conviction and sentence in the 

Hamilton County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas, case number B-1705754, raising the following 

four grounds for relief: (1) false indictment, wrongful arrest, conviction, and sentenced without 

probable cause, (2) denial of due process of law, not given notice of alleged crime due to the 

vague language in the indictment and fatal variance, (3) denial of an impartial jury and a fair 

trial, indicted and convicted based on grand jury and trial jury tampering, and (4) the weight of 

the evidence at trial did not support the vague language in the indictment. (Doc. 1). 

 1 On the same date the instant petition was filed, the Court received three other related habeas corpus petitions

challenging the same case and raising the same grounds for relief. Kimberly Khamisi filed a habeas petition on 

behalf of Ayinde Khamisi in Case No. 1:18-cv-547 and on behalf of Jelani Khamisi in Case No. 1:18-cv-545. Kaia 

Khamisi also filed a habeas petition in Case No. 1:18-cv-548.

The undersigned notes that this is the fourth petition filed by petitioner. See Khamisi v. Deters, Case No. 1:17-cv824 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 6, 2017) (Dlott, J.; Bowman, M.J.); Khamisi v. Ohio, Case No. 1:18-cv-111 (S.D. Ohio Feb.

15, 2018) (Barrett, J.; Bowman, M.J.); Khamisi v. Sheriff, Case No. 1:18-cv-255 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 10, 2018) (Barrett, 

J.; Bowman, M.J.). Petitioner’s prior petitions have been dismissed (or recommended that the action be dismissed 

via pending Report and Recommendation) without prejudice for lack of exhaustion or for failure to prosecute. 
2

There are several deficiencies with the petition. First, the total filing fee due in this 

habeas corpus action is $5.00. However, petitioner has neither paid the $5.00 filing fee nor 

sought leave to proceed without prepayment of fees. 

Second, the petition is not signed by petitioner. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 requires that every 

pleading, written motion, and other paper shall be signed by the party if not represented by 

counsel. Petitioner has not signed the petition form submitted to the Court. (See Doc. 1 at 

PageID 16). Although the Court generally would enter a deficiency order to allow petitioner to 

correct these deficiencies, such an order is not warranted here because the petition is otherwise 

subject to dismissal.2

The statute governing habeas petitions filed by state prisoners contains an exhaustion 

requirement. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c). Specifically, the statute provides that an application 

for a writ of habeas corpus by a state prisoner shall not be granted unless the petitioner has 

exhausted her state court remedies, there is an absence of available state corrective process, or 

circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect petitioner’s rights. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254(b)(1). A state defendant with federal constitutional claims is required to first fairly 

present those claims to the state courts for consideration because of the equal obligation of the 

state courts to protect the constitutional rights of criminal defendants, and in order to prevent 

needless friction between the state and federal courts. See Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 6 

(1982) (per curiam); Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275-76 (1971). Under the “fair 

presentation” requirement, “state prisoners must give the state courts one full opportunity to 

resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State’s established 

 2 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, the Court “must 

promptly examine” habeas petitions forwarded by the clerk for initial review and “must dismiss” a habeas petition 

“if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the 

district court.” See 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 
3

appellate review process,” which, in Ohio, includes discretionary review in the Ohio Supreme 

Court. See O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999); Hafley v. Sowders, 902 F.2d 480, 

483 (6th Cir. 1990); Leroy v. Marshall, 757 F.2d 94, 97, 99-100 (6th Cir. 1985).

If the petitioner fails to fairly present her claims through the requisite levels of state 

appellate review, but still has an avenue open to her in the state courts by which she may present 

the claims, her petition is subject to dismissal without prejudice for failure to exhaust state 

remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c). 

In this case, petitioner was sentenced on June 22, 2018 in the Hamilton County Court of 

Common Pleas, case number B-1705754. She filed a notice of appeal on July 20, 2018, which 

remains pending before the Ohio Court of Appeals. (See Doc. 1 at PageID 2, 3). Because it is 

clear from the face of the petition that petitioner has yet to exhaust her grounds for relief—via 

the completion of direct appeal in the Ohio Court of Appeals and further review by the Ohio 

Supreme Court—the petition is subject to dismissal for lack of exhaustion. 

Accordingly, it is recommended that the petition be DISMISSED without prejudice, 

subject to refiling upon exhaustion of petitioner’s state court remedies. 

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

 s/ Stephanie K. Bowman 

Stephanie K. Bowman 

United States Magistrate Judge 
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

KIMBERLY KHAMISI, Case No. 1:18-cv-550

Petitioner,

Black, J.

vs. Bowman, M.J.

WARDEN, OHIO 

REFORMATORY FOR WOMEN, 

Respondent.

NOTICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy of 

the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the 

proposed findings and recommendations. This period may be extended further by the Court on 

timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected 

to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report 

and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring on the record at an oral 

hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such 

portions of it as all parties may agree upon, or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the 

assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections 

WITHIN 14 DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to make objections in 

accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 

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