Rodriguez-Canas v. Warden, Noble Correctional Institution

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ-CANAS,
Petitioner,
Case No. 2:25-cv-1246
v.
Judge Michael H. Watson
WARDEN, Noble Correctional
Institution, 	Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry
Respondent.
ORDER
Petitioner, an inmate in state custody at the Noble Correctional Center, has filed a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the following reasons, the
undersigned Magistrate Judge WITHDRAWS her prior Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5)
and ORDERS Respondent to file an answer conforming to the requirements of Rule 5 of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order.
Report and Recommendation and Petitioner’s Filing Fee (Doc. 5)
When Petitioner initiated this habeas action, he failed to pay the required filing fee or
submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. After Petitioner failed to comply with
Deficiency Orders issued on November 3, 2025 (Doc. 2) and January 2, 2026 (Doc. 4), the
undersigned issued a Report and Recommendation on February 26, 2026 recommending that this
case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 5). But one week later, on
March 6, 2026, Petitioner paid the required filing fee. (Doc. 6). The undersigned accordingly
WITHDRAWS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5).
Case: 2:25-cv-01246-MHW-MRM Doc #: 7 Filed: 03/11/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Rule 4 Preliminary Examination and Order for Answer
Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 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.” 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. The undersigned finds that it does
not plainly appear from the face of the Petition that Petitioner is not entitled to relief in this
Court. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Respondent shall file an answer conforming to
the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases within sixty (60) days of
the date of the filing of this Order. Specifically, the answer shall respond to each allegation
made in the Petition, raise any affirmative defenses relied upon by Respondent, and state
whether, from Respondent’s perspective, any claim in the Petition is barred by a failure to
exhaust state remedies, a procedural bar, non-retroactivity, or a statute of limitations.
Before filing the answer, Respondent shall file those portions of the state court record
needed to adjudicate this case. When the record is filed electronically, the Court’s CM/ECF
filing system will affix a unique PageID number to each page of the record, displayed in the
upper right-hand corner of the page. All papers filed in the case thereafter by either party shall
include record references to the PageID number. Prior to filing the state court record, the
Warden’s counsel shall ensure that any borders on parts of the record (typically, court reporter
transcripts) do not obscure the PageID number when the page is filed. The record shall be
indexed by insertion of “bookmarks” in the .pdf version of the state court record uploaded to the
Court’s CM/ECF system, which displays each exhibit and the name of that exhibit in the record.
Case: 2:25-cv-01246-MHW-MRM Doc #: 7 Filed: 03/11/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 5, a complete copy of the answer and state court record
with the PageID numbers must be served on Petitioner at the time of filings.
Petitioner may, not later than twenty-one (21) days after the answer is filed, file and
serve a reply to the answer.
The Clerk is ordered to serve the Petition on Respondent and the Attorney General of
Ohio, Habeas Corpus Unit of the Corrections Litigation Section c/o
Brian.Higgins@OhioAGO.gov and Habeas.docketclerk@OhioAGO.gov.
The Clerk is further ordered to WITHDRAW the Report and Recommendation (Doc.
5).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Caroline H. Gentry
Caroline H. Gentry
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 2:25-cv-01246-MHW-MRM Doc #: 7 Filed: 03/11/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>