Jacob Ferguson v. Warden, Belmont Correctional Institution

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JACOB FERGUSON, Petitioner, v. Case No. 2:26-cv-89 Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison WARDEN, Belmont Correctional Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers Institution, Respondent.

ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Petitioner Jacob Ferguson, a state prisoner incarcerated at Belmont Correctional Institution (“BECI”), has two pro se habeas corpus cases pending before this Court: 1. Case No. 2:25-cv-1426 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 1, 2025); and 2. Case No. 2:26-cv-89 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 12, 2025).

Petitioner paid the required filing fee to proceed with Case No. 2:26-cv-89 (Doc. 1) and the Respondent-Warden has been ordered to file an answer to the Petition and any necessary portions of the state court record (Doc. 7). But Petitioner did not pay the re quired filing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to proceed with Case No. 2:25-cv-1426 and nothing has occurred in that case.

In any event, because the Petitions in both cases are duplicative and challenge the same state court judgment, the Undersigned RECOMMENDS that Case No. 2:25-cv-1426 be DISMISSED without prejudice. Petitioner may continue to proceed with Case No. 2:26-cv-89 It is thus RECOMMENDED that Case No. 2:25-cv-1426 be DISMISSED without prejudice and TERMINATED on the docket. The Undersigned opts for dismissal over consolidation so that Petitioner does not have to pay two filing fees to bring one dispute to the Court.

It is further ORDERED that the Clerk file this Order and Report and Recommendation in Case No. 2:25-cv-1426, in addition to the instant case.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED.

March 4, 2026 s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS United States Magistrate Judge Procedure on Objections 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 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).