Young v. Kochovar, No. 1:2008cv01670 - Document 4 (N.D. Ohio 2008)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order: The Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted; the petition is denied and this action is dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases. Further, the Court certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Peter C. Economus on 8/26/08. (R,Li)

Download PDF
Young v. Kochovar Doc. 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO LOREN YOUNG, Petitioner, v. KENNETH KOCHOVAR, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:08 CV 1670 JUDGE PETER C. ECONOMUS MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On July 11, 2008, petitioner pro se Loren Young filed the above-captioned habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition asserts that he is being held at the Cuyahoga County Jail in violation of his Ohio statutory speedy trial rights. For the reasons stated below, the petition is denied and this action is dismissed. 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. The issue of whether or not petitioner’s rights set forth in Ohio’s speedy trial statute have been violated is an issue of Dockets.Justia.com state law. reexamine It is simply not the province of this court to state-court determinations on state-law questions. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the 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)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Peter C. Economus 8/26/08 PETER C. ECONOMUS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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.