Clark v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
WILLIAM H. CLARK,
Petitioner, 	: 	Case No. 3:25-cv-00002
- vs - 	District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz
WARDEN,
Chillicothe Correctional Institution,
:
Respondent.
ENTRY AND ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC.
NO. 16); OVERRULING PETITIONER’S MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. NO. 17); AND, DISMISSING THE PETITION
UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2254 FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BY A PERSON IN STATE
CUSTODY (DOC. NO. 1)
This habeas corpus case, brought pro se by petitioner William Clark to obtain relief from
his conviction in the Darke County Court of Common Pleas on five counts of sexual battery, is
before the Court on Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. No. 17) to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendations (Doc. No. 16) recommending dismissal. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 and 28
U.S.C. § 636(b), the Court has reviewed the Report de novo with particular attention to those issues
on which the Petitioner has objected.
The Respondent Warden asserted that merits review of Petitioner’s claims was barred both
by the statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) and by Petitioner’s procedural default in
presenting his claims to the Supreme Court of Ohio. The Magistrate Judge accepted both of these
arguments and recommended the Petition be dismissed.
Case: 3:25-cv-00002-TMR-MRM Doc #: 18 Filed: 01/12/26 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Petitioner objects that he “will point to the newly discovered evidence as submitted on
January 5, 2024, in accordance with 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(2).” (Objections, Doc. No. 17, PageID
621.) On that date Petitioner filed his Motion to Set Aside Judgment in the Darke County Court
of Common Pleas (State Court Record, Doc. No. 11, Ex. 36.) In the Motion, which he asserted
was authorized under Ohio Revised Code § 2953.21, Petitioner claimed that his Alford plea was
coerced and that his petition was timely based on new evidence which he said was attached. He
asserted that the new evidence entitled him to relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(2) because they
showed the conviction was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. Id.
Clark attached his own Affidavit which claims “On November 16, 2023, I received newly
discovered evidence that was not available that concurs [sic] my innocence.” 	Id. Attached to
Clark’s Affidavit is the purported affidavit of Rachel Duncan who claims that at some undisclosed
time the complaining witness in this case, Duncan’s daughter-in-law Jessica Clark, told Duncan
that
nothing really happened. “I made the whole thing up.” Obviously
concerned that a innocent person was wrongfully imprisoned I
inquired again in front of her mother, Heather Clark, and she
reiterated “it never happened.”
(State Court Record, Doc. No. 11, PageID 444).
Judge Fliehman promptly denied this Motion, finding
In the prior proceedings, the Defendant submitted an Affidavit of
Heather Clark indicating that the victim, Jessica Clark, stated as
early as November 2014 that she falsely accused William Clark. The
Court of Appeals stated: “We agree with the trial court that the
victim’s alleged recantation ... was within Clark’s knowledge prior
to his plea.” State v. Clark, 2nd Dist. Darke No. 2017-CA-14, 2018-
Ohio-4042, ¶ 45. “In other words, his petition was barred by res
judicata because it was not based on evidence outside his knowledge
when he entered his Alford plea.” Id. at r 47.
. . .
Case: 3:25-cv-00002-TMR-MRM Doc #: 18 Filed: 01/12/26 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
Here, no “new evidence” is presented, only a new affiant presenting
practically identical hearsay. The recanting of the allegations by the
victim was the subject matter of the prior petition for post-
conviction relief. This Court and the Second District Court of
Appeals previously considered Defendant's argument and assertion
of “new evidence” and properly ruled on the matter. Therefore, the
claim in Defendant's most recent Motion is barred by res judicata.
(Judgment Entry, State Court Record, Doc. No. 11, Ex. 39).
This Court is bound by the findings of fact of the Ohio courts that Clark knew of Jessica’s
purported recantation before entering his Alford plea. Because he failed to raise this issue in his
direct appeal, it is barred by Ohio’s res judicata doctrine from being raised in collateral
proceedings and that bar has actually been applied to him in denying his original post-conviction
petition and then his motion to vacate judgment. Moreover, her recantation cannot be considered
in applying 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2) because it was not in the appellate record on direct review.
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011). Pinholster bars a federal court “from admitting new
evidence upon which to assess the reasonableness of a state court's constitutional analysis.”
Upshaw v. Stephenson, 97 F. 4th 365, 372 (6th Cir. 2024), quoting Mitchell v. Genovese, 974 F.3d
638, 647 (6th Cir. 2020). It is certainly not new evidence of the type and quality required to prove
entitlement to the “actual innocence gateway” under Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 319 (1995).
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations (Doc. No. 16) is
ADOPTED and Petitioner’s Motion in Opposition to Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 17)
is hereby OVERRULED. The Court further DISMISSES Petitioner’s Petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc. No. 1) WITH PREJUDICE
and directs the Clerk to TERMINATE this action on the Court’s docket. Because reasonable
jurists would not disagree with this conclusion, Petitioner is DENIED a certificate of appealability
and the Court CERTIFIES to the Sixth Circuit that any appeal would be objectively frivolous and
Case: 3:25-cv-00002-TMR-MRM Doc #: 18 Filed: 01/12/26 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
should not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis.
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Monday, January 12, 2026.
s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 3:25-cv-00002-TMR-MRM Doc #: 18 Filed: 01/12/26 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>