Abraitis v. Gallagher et al
Filing
8
Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 9/2/15 adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and setting forth the grounds for denial of the petition filed under 28 USC Section 2254. (Related Docs. 1 , 6 , 7 ) (M,G)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
------------------------------------------------------:
SARUNAS ABRAITIS
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
LAURA J. GALLAGHER, Judge, et al.,
:
:
Respondent.
:
-------------------------------------------------------
CASE NO. 1:15-CV-710
OPINION & ORDER
[Resolving Doc. Nos. 1, 6, 7]
JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Habeas Corpus Petitioner Sarunas Abraitis seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from a
conditional ten-day sentence of incarceration.1/ Cuyahoga County Probate Court Judge Laura
Gallagher issued the sentence at an April 8, 2015 contempt hearing.2/ Judge Gallagher imposed this
conditional sentence after Petitioner refused to comply with a court order that directed Petitioner to
deposit funds into an estate account. Petitioner formerly served as the estate executor.3/
Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on April 10, 2015.4/ Magistrate Judge
James R. Knepp II recommended that the Court dismiss Petitioner Abraitis’ petition because
Petitioner failed to exhaust his state remedies for relief.5/ Petitioner objects to Judge Knepp’s Report
and Recommendation (“R&R”).6/ For the following reasons, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s
objections, ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Knepp’s R&R, and DENIES Petitioner’s § 2254 petition.
1/
Doc. 1.
2/
Id., at 5.
3/
Doc. 1-7, at 10.
4/
Doc. 1.
Doc. 6.
5/
6/
Doc. 7.
-1-
Case No. 1:15-cv-710
Gwin, J.
I. Discussion
The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to conduct a de novo review only of
those portions of a Report and Recommendation to which the parties have properly objected.7/
A habeas petitioner under § 2254 must exhaust all available state remedies before seeking
a federal writ of habeas corpus.8/ “[T]he doctrine of exhaustion of state remedies has developed to
protect the state courts' opportunity to confront initially and resolve constitutional issues arising
within their jurisdictions and to limit federal judicial interference in state adjudicatory processes.”9/
Therefore, a district court will decline to review a habeas petition unless a petitioner can show that
he or she has exhausted all available state remedies.
A petitioner fails to exhaust all remedies “if he has the right under the law of the State to
raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.”10/ A petitioner can avoid the exhaustion
requirement if he or she can show that there is an absence of available state corrective process, or
available process would be ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.11/
The R&R found that Petitioner failed to exhaust his state remedies for relief from the
conditional sentence in the contempt judgment. Petitioner objects, arguing that Petitioner did in fact
exhaust his available state remedies because “the federal issue underlying the jail sentence has
already been exhausted in the state courts.”12/ This argument misunderstands the exhaustion
requirements. Petitioner seeks relief from the conditional ten-day sentence. Petitioner therefore has
7/
28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1).
8/
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b)(1); Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004).
9/
Atkins v. People of State of Mich., 644 F.2d 543, 546 (6th Cir. 1981).
10/
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (c).
11/
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b)(1).
Doc. 7, at 7.
12/
-2-
Case No. 1:15-cv-710
Gwin, J.
to exhaust all available state remedies for relief from that sentence, not just the underlying factual
issues. Petitioner failed to exhaust his state remedies when he chose to file a petition for habeas
corpus with this Court instead of taking a state court appeal from the state court contempt judgment.
Petitioner also objects on the grounds that the R&R misidentified Vivian Abraitis-Newcomer
as an heir of the contested estate and that it misstated the timing of the IRS’ “determination of
ownership.”13/ Even assuming that these objections are valid, Petitioner has not exhausted his state
court remedies on these grounds. As Petitioner points out, he took numerous state appeals from the
issues surrounding the conditional sentence.14/ Petitioner could have also appealed these factual
issues in the state courts at the time he filed this habeas petition. Asking the Court to review these
issues now is asking the Court to sit in direct appellate review of a state court determination, which
is inappropriate. Therefore, Petitioner’s claims for relief fail because petitioner did not exhaust his
state court remedies before filing this habeas petition.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections to the R&R. The
Court ADOPTS in whole Magistrate Judge Knepp’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and
incorporates them fully herein by reference. The Court DENIES Petitioner’s § 2254 petition.
Moreover, the Court certifies that no basis exists upon which to issue a certificate of appealability.15/
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: September 2, 2015
13/
Doc. 7, at 7, 12–13.
Doc. 1, at 12.
14/
15/
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. Proc. 22(b).
-3-
Case No. 1:15-cv-710
Gwin, J.
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?