Iden v. Warden Southeastern Correctional Institution

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JOHN J. IDEN,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, SOUTHEASTERN
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent.
:
:
Case No. 2:23-cv-2525
Chief Judge Sarah D. Morrison
Magistrate Judge Chelsey M.
Vascura
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).
Case: 2:23-cv-02525-SDM-CMV Doc #: 24 Filed: 03/04/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
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
Case: 2:23-cv-02525-SDM-CMV Doc #: 24 Filed: 03/04/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
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
Case: 2:23-cv-02525-SDM-CMV Doc #: 24 Filed: 03/04/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>