Hargrove v. Schweitzer

Filing 9

Memorandum Opinion and Order. There is no indication on the face of the petition that Hargrove seeks to raise an issue cognizable in habeas corpus, as he does not set forth grounds for relief with supporting facts reasonably suggesting his co nviction was invalid or that he might be entitled to release. Accordingly, the Amended Petition is denied and this action is dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Further, the court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C . § 1915(a), 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). Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 12/6/2017. (R,Sh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

DANIEL P. HARGROVE, Pro Se,
Petitioner
v.
WARDEN TOM SCHWEITZER,
Respondent

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 5:17 CV 2107
JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

On October 6, 2017, Petitioner pro se Daniel P. Hargrove filed this action for habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because the Petition did not provide sufficient information concerning
grounds raised in state court and exhaustion of state court remedies, he was ordered to file an
Amended Petition, which he filed on October 26, 2017. The Amended Petition seeks to challenge
Hargrove’s 2016 burglary conviction in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, for which he
received a sentence of two years.
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.
As grounds for the Amended Petition, Mr. Hargrove asserts: 1) the State is “bankrupt,” and
therefore lacked jurisdiction over him; 2) the state and federal governments “breached the contract”
with Petitioner under the Uniform Commercial Code; 3) his conviction violated his right to privacy;
and 4) he was subjected to double jeopardy because he was sentenced pursuant to his conviction and
also found to have violated his parole.
There is no indication on the face of the petition that Hargrove seeks to raise an issue
cognizable in habeas corpus, as he does not set forth grounds for relief with supporting facts

reasonably suggesting his conviction was invalid or that he might be entitled to release.
Accordingly, the Amended Petition is denied and this action is dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Further, the court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a),
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/ SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

December 6, 2017

-2-