Fort v. Sloan et al
Filing
4
Memorandum Opinion and Order For the reasons stated in the Order, petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted (Doc. No. 2 ); his motion to consolidate (Doc. No. 3 ) is denied; and this habeas petition is summarily dismissed. The Court further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.Signed by Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 4/27/2016. (K,K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
RICHARD FORT,
Petitioner,
v.
BRIGHAM SLOAN,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:16 CV 962
JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
Pro se petitioner Richard Fort, an Ohio prisoner, has filed this action for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2241. He challenges a state criminal conviction on the ground
that the original jury verdict forms cannot be located, and he seeks “to be released from
custody.”
Promptly after the filing of a habeas petition, the district court must undertake a
preliminary review of the petition to determine “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any
attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing §
2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (applicable to §2241 petitions pursuant to Rule
1(b)). If so, the petition must be summarily dismissed. See Allen v. Perini, 26 Ohio Misc. 149,
424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970) (the district court has “a duty to screen out a habeas corpus
petition which should be dismissed for lack of merit on its face”).
This petition must be summarily dismissed. The petition is not properly brought under
§2241. “[R]egardless of the label on the statutory underpinning [used] for [a] petition, habeas
petitions of state prisoners are governed by 28 U.S.C. §2254.” See Byrd v. Bagley, 37 F. App’x
94, 95 (6th Cir. 2002). Further, the petitioner has already filed a (still pending) §2254 petition
challenging the same state conviction. See Fort v. Sloan, Case No. 1: 16 CV 551 (N.D. Ohio).
The petitioner must seek to raise any contention he has that his custody violates the Constitution
or laws of the United States in that case.
Accordingly, petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted (Doc. No. 2);
his motion to consolidate (Doc. No. 3) is denied; and this habeas petition is summarily
dismissed. The Court further certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), that an appeal from
this decision could not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Dan Aaron Polster
4/27/2016
DAN AARON POLSTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-2-
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?