Austin v. Warden, Noble Correctional Institution

Filing 7

Memorandum Opinion and Order denying petition and this action is dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of theRules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 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, and that there is no basis onwhich to issue a certificate of appealability. Judge Dan A. Polster(C,KA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

RAYMOND DEAN AUSTIN,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, Noble Correctional Institution,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 5:15 CV 333
JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

On February 23, 2015, petitioner pro se Raymond Dean Austin filed the above-captioned
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Austin, a prisoner in an Ohio
correctional institution, challenges his continued incarceration resulting from his multiple rape
convictions in 1992, for which he received a 30-75 year prison sentence. In particular, he claims
he should have been granted parole in 2006. While the petition is unclear, Austin asserts he is
being subjected to involuntary servitude, and that Ohio statutes have been applied to him in a
manner violating the Ohio and federal constitutions.
A federal district court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in
state custody only on the ground that the custody violates the Constitution or laws of the United

States. Furthermore, the petitioner must have exhausted all available state remedies. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254.
Even liberally construed, the petition does not reasonably suggest a claim cognizable in
federal habeas corpus. As a threshold matter, the Supreme Court has held that "[t]here is no
constitutional or inherent right of a convicted person to be conditionally released before the
expiration of a valid sentence." Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional
Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979). Further, the grounds raised are primarily based on state statutes
and the Ohio Constitution. It is not the province of this court to reexamine state-court
determinations on state-law questions. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). Finally,
to the extent Austin seeks to raise federal constitutional grounds, he simply does not set forth a
coherent basis for such claims which might entitle him to relief.
Accordingly, the petition is denied and this action is dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 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, and that there is no basis on
which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed.R.App.P. 22(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/Dan Aaron Polster 2/26/15
DAN AARON POLSTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE