Brooks v. State of Ohio, No. 1:2016cv01049 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2016)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order: The petition is denied and this action is dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, without prejudice to refiling upon exhaustion of state court remedies. Further, the Court certifies , pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 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. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); 28 U.S.C. Section 2253. (Doc. No. 1 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 5/6/2016. (P,J)

Download PDF
Brooks v. State of Ohio Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION LEANDER B. BROOKS, PETITIONER, vs. STATE OF OHIO, RESPONDENT. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:16-cv-1049 JUDGE SARA LIOI MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On May 2, 2016, petitioner pro se Leander B. Brooks filed the above-captioned petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Brooks seeks to challenge his convictions, in the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, for aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, tampering with evidence, and receiving stolen property. For the reasons stated below, the petition is denied and this action is dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. A federal court may entertain a habeas petition filed by a person in state custody only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). In addition, a petitioner must have exhausted all available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). Petitioner’s sole ground in support of the petition is unclear, but asserts his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments were violated. The petition states that Brooks has not yet sought review of his convictions in the Ohio Supreme Court. (Doc. No. 1-2.) Dockets.Justia.com Such review may be available, see Ohio Sup. Ct. R. P. 7.01(A)(4)(a), and must be sought in order to exhaust state court remedies. Rust v. Zent, 17 F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir. 1994). Based on the foregoing, the petition is denied and this action is dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, without prejudice to refiling upon exhaustion of state court remedies. 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, and that there is no basis on which to issue a certificate of appealability. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 6, 2016 HONORABLE SARA LIOI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.