John J. Iden v. Warden, Southeastern Correctional Institution

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JOHN J. IDEN, Petitioner, : Case No. 2:23-cv-2525 v. Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison Magistrate Judge Chelsey M.

Vascura WARDEN, SOUTHEASTERN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, : Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER In January 2019, Petitioner John J. Iden was sentenced to thirty years of incarceration after a Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas jury found him guilty of rape, attempted murder, and kidnapping. In his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Mr. Iden asserts that his constitutional rights were violated during those state court proceedings. (Petition, ECF No. 1.) The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation that the Petition be denied and the action be dismissed. (R&R, ECF No. 22.) Mr. Iden filed objections. (Objs., ECF No. 23.)

If a party timely objects to a report and recommendation, the Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Upon review, the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, Mr. Iden’s Objections, and the implicated portions of the record, de novo, and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions or reasoning.

I. OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Mr. Iden asserted three challenges to his state proceedings. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny all three. Mr. Iden objects only to the Magistrate Judge’s findings as to Claim One.

In Claim One, Mr. Iden argues the trial court erred in admitting testimony of prior acts of sexual assault occurring under similar circumstances and in the same state park where the victim was found.

The Magistrate Judge recommends Claim One be dismissed for two reasons.

First, errors in the application of state law, especially regarding the admissibility of evidence, do not warrant federal habeas relief. (R&R, PAGEID # 1666.) Second, the admission of other-act evidence is not contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent. (Id., PAGEID # 166–67.) The Court finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning or conclusions. Mr. Iden’s objections do not persuade otherwise.

The R&R is thus ADOPTED and Mr. Iden’s objections are OVERRULED.

II. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY The Court is not persuaded that reasonable jurists could debate the Petition’s dismissal. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893, n.4 (1983)). As a result, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. The Court further certifies that the appeal would not be in good faith and that any application to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal should be denied.

III. CONCLUSION For these reasons, Mr. Iden’s Objections (ECF No. 23) are OVERRULED.

The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 22) is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Sarah D. Morrison SARAH D. MORRISON, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT