Turnbaugh v. Warden Gunja

Filing 4

Memorandum Opinion and Order. Petition is denied. Action is dismissed pursuant to 28 USC 2243. The court certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, pursuant to 28 USC 1915(a)(3). Signed by Judge Jack Zouhary on 3/17/08. (B,CJ)

Download PDF
Turnbaugh v. Warden Gunja Doc. 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION KENT TURNBAUGH, Petitioner, v. WARDEN GUNJA, Respondent. On March 12, 2008, Petitioner pro se Kent Turnbaugh, an inmate at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center (NEOCC), filed this habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner seeks an order reducing his federal sentence by two days for each day served at NEOCC, on the ground that "the conditions at the NEOCC borderline on cruel and unusual punishment and this has caused him to serve a more onerous period of incarceration than that which was contemplated by the sentencing Court." Petitioner cites numerous CASE NO. 4:08 CV 618 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JUDGE JACK ZOUHARY cases in support of his request (Petition, p.5). Habeas corpus is not the appropriate vehicle for challenging the conditions of one's confinement. Abuhouran v. Morrison, No. 02-3427, 46 F.App'x. 349, 349 (6th Cir. 2002); Okoro v. Scibana, No. 99-1322, 1999 WL 1252871, at *2 (6th Cir. Dec. 15, Dockets.Justia.com 1999). Further, the cases cited by Petitioner in support of his request for sentence modification all concern downward departures made by the trial court at sentencing. inapplicable here. Accordingly, the Petition is denied and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243. The court certifies, As such, they are wholly 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/ Jack Zouhary 3/17/08 JACK ZOUHARY U.S. 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?