Gordon et al. v. Medina County Sheriff's Department et al.

Filing 6

Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 1 ), and the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. [1 ]-2), are denied and this action is dismissed. All other pending Motions are denied. Further, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 3/6/2025. (JLG)

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

SHANE GORDON,
Petitioner,
v.
MEDINA COUNTY
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:25mc006

JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

Shane Gordon filed a pro se Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 1) on behalf of his wife, Jenifer Gordon, asking the Court to block
her extradition to Virginia to face parole violation charges pertaining to her Virginia conviction and
sentence. The Motion contained a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as
an attachment (ECF No. 1-2). The Motion and Petition are improper. For the reasons set forth
below, both the Motion and the Petition are denied and this action is dismissed.
Jenifer Gordon was convicted in a Virginia state court on charges of assault and resisting
arrest. It appears that Jenifer Gordon served a prison term because Shane Gordon indicates that she
was released in July 2024. (ECF No. 1-2 at PageID #: 8). The State of Virginia permitted her to
reside in Ohio and to serve her parole under the supervision of the Ohio Adult Parole Authority
(“OAPA”). (ECF No. 1-2 at PageID #: 8). Virginia Circuit Court Judge Stacey W. Moreau issued
a capias on February 7, 2025. (ECF No. 1-2 at PageID #: 8). Jenifer Gordon was arrested on the

(1:25mc006)
capias by the Medina County Sheriff’s Department on February 24, 2025. (ECF No. 1-2 at PageID
#: 8). Shane Gordon has now filed this action with a Motion and a Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 asking the Court to order the U.S. Marshals to take custody of his
wife to prevent the State of Virginia from extraditing her to face parole violation charges.
The filing is fatally defective in several ways. First, Shane Gordon is not an attorney. Cases
in the Courts of the United States may be conducted only by the parties personally or through
licensed counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 1654. This statute does not allow for an unlicensed layman to
represent anyone in federal court other than himself. See Shepherd v. Wellman, 313 F.3d 963,
970–71 (6th Cir. 2002); Eagle Assoc. v. Bank of Montreal, 926 F.2d 1305, 1308 (2d Cir.1991). The
fact that Shane Gordon has a power of attorney for Jenifer Gordon does not change this result. See
J.M. Huber Corp. v. Roberts, No. 88–6160, 1989 WL 16866, at * 1 (6th Cir. Feb.17, 1989); Brown
v. Middlebrook, No. 08–3312, 2009 WL 536553, at * 1 (D. Kan. Mar.3, 2009); Doyle v. Schumann,
No. 1:07cv3684, 2008 WL 397588, at * 2 (N.D. Ohio Feb.11, 2008). A power of attorney is quite
distinct from a license to practice law. Jenifer Gordon did not sign the Petition or any of the Motions
in this case. Without her signature or the signature of a licensed attorney, the case is not properly
before the Court.
Furthermore, even if this case could proceed without Jenifer Gordon’s signature, a case
cannot be initiated with a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. It requires a Complaint or a
Petition to invoke federal court jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 3. The Court cannot grant
injunctive relief without a proper civil action before it.

2

(1:25mc006)
Shane Gordon attached a Habeas Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to the Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 1-2). Even if the Court
construes this as a habeas petition, it cannot proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Jenifer Gordon is a
convicted state prisoner. As a state prisoner, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the exclusive vehicle for
challenging a state court conviction or sentence. The Court, however, cannot convert a § 2241
petition to one filed under § 2254 because a § 2254 petition is subject to the restrictions of the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (AEDPA), including the one-year statute of
limitations, limitations on successive petitions, and state court exhaustion requirements. Warren v.
Miller, No. 1:05-CV-651, 2005 WL 3007107, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 9, 2005) (dismissing petition
for writ of habeas corpus brought by state prisoner under section 2241 without prejudice, rather than
converting it to a petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254). A
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 would be dismissed as the wrong type of action.
Finally, a federal court in the Northern District of Ohio has no authority to interfere in a
Virginia state court criminal proceeding. Therefore, the Court cannot take custody of a Virginia
state prisoner solely to prevent the State of Virginia from conducting a parole revocation hearing
pertaining to a conviction and sentence imposed by a Virginia state court. See Younger v. Harris, 401
U.S. 37, 44-45 (1971).

IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, and
the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 are denied and this action is

3

(1:25mc006)
dismissed. All other pending Motions are denied. Further, the Court 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.

March 6, 2025
Date

/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge

4