Powell v. State of Ohio
Order: Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 10 ) be, and the same hereby is, granted with prejudice. Petitioner's motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. [5)] be, and the same hereby is, denied, as moot. Petitioner's motion for leave to file an amended petition (Doc. 7 ), which raises the same claims as the original petition, be, and the same hereby is, denied as moot. No certificate of appealability will issue, as reasonable jurists would agree that thepetition states no cognizable ground for habeas relief. Judge James G. Carr on 4/21/17.(C,D)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Case No. 3:16CV3050
State of Ohio,
This is a habeas corpus case under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Petitioner Carlin Powell is a pretrial detainee at the Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Jail, where he
is awaiting trial on multiple counts of rape, kidnapping, and corruption of a minor.
When the Cuyahoga County grand jury indicted Powell in August, 2015, he was in custody
in North Carolina, serving a prison sentence for narcotics offenses. In October, 2015, the Cuyahoga
County Sheriff’s Department served a detainer on Powell’s custodian in North Carolina, and North
Carolina authorities ultimately transferred Powell to Ohio in May, 2016. (Doc. 10 at 3–4).
As of this filing, the Ohio court has set Powell’s trial for May 10, 2017. (Docket Entry of
March 6, 2017, State v. Powell, Case No. CR–15–598275–A, Cuyahoga Cnty. Common Pleas Ct.).
Powell seeks habeas relief on the ground that Ohio authorities failed to honor his request for
a speedy trial under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD). (Doc. 1 at 2–5). He alleges that
he made such a request of the Ohio authorities in November, 2015 (id. at 9), and that the terms of
the IAD entitled him to a trial within 180 days of that date. Nevertheless, the trial has yet to begin.
Respondent has moved to dismiss the petition (Doc. 10), and I will grant the motion.
Under Sixth Circuit precedent, “a violation of [the Interstate Agreement on Detainers] . . .
is not a basis for habeas corpus relief.” Browning v. Folz, 837 F.2d 276, 283 (6th Cir. 1988); see also
Everett v. Burgh, 477 F. App’x 325, 327 (6th Cir. 2012) (claim that “State violate the Interstate
Agreement on Detainers . . . by taking too long to bring [the petitioner] to trial” was “not cognizable
on federal habeas review”); Curtis v. U.S., 123 F. App’x 179, 184–85 (6th Cir. 2005) (IAD claims
are not cognizable in § 2241 cases).
Because Powell’s claim is not cognizable, he is not entitled habeas relief.
It is, therefore,
Respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 10) be,
and the same hereby is, granted with prejudice;
Petitioner’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 5) be, and the same hereby is,
denied, as moot;
Petitioner’s motion for leave to file an amended petition (Doc. 7), which raises the
same claims as the original petition, be, and the same hereby is, denied as moot; and
No certificate of appealability will issue, as reasonable jurists would agree that the
petition states no cognizable ground for habeas relief.
/s/ James G. Carr
Sr. U.S. District Judge
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?