Tutstone v. U.S. of America, No. 1:2011cv02577 - Document 5 (N.D. Ohio 2011)

Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order. Habeas corpus is not the appropriate vehicle for petitioner to challenge his pending criminal proceedings as no exceptional circumstances exist. The petition is denied and this action dismissed. 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. Judge John R. Adams on 12/29/11. (R,Sh)

Download PDF
Tutstone v. U.S. of America Doc. 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ERIC TUTSTONE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:11 CV 2577 JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On November 28, 2011, Petitioner pro se Eric Tutstone filed the above-captioned in forma pauperis habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner challenges his current pretial detention at the Bedford Correctional Facility awaiting resolution of the criminal case against him pending in this Court. United States v. Tutstone, Case No. 1:11 CR 004. Petitioner asserts his continuing detention violates his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. Habeas corpus, however, is not the appropriate vehicle for him to challenge his pending criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court has held that “in the absence of exceptional circumstances in criminal cases the regular judicial procedure should be followed and habeas corpus should not be granted in advance of a trial.” Jones v. Perkins, 245 U.S. 390, 391 (1918); see also, Sandles v. Hemmingway, 22 F. App’x 557, 557(6th Cir. 2001)(claim that would be dispositive of underlying criminal charge must be exhausted at trial and on appeal before habeas corpus relief is sought). The undersigned presided over the underlying criminal trial, which has now concluded. As such, the Court is abundantly aware that no exceptional circumstances exist. Accordingly, the Petition is denied and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 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. Date: December 29, 2011 s/John R. Adams JOHN R. ADAMS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dockets.Justia.com

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.