Lutz v. Bradshaw et al, No. 1:2013cv01904 - Document 6 (N.D. Ohio 2013)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order: As the petition raises no issues cognizable in habeas corpus, the petition is denied and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2243. 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. 28 U.S.C. Section 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Judge Sara Lioi on 11/21/2013. (P,J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lutz v. Bradshaw et al Doc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION RONALD EDWARD LUTZ, PETITIONER, vs. MAGGIE BRADSHAW, et al, RESPONDENT. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:13cv1904 JUDGE SARA LIOI MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On August 29, 2013, pro se petitioner Ronald Edward Lutz, a state prisoner at the Richland Correctional Institution in Mansfield, Ohio, filed the above-captioned habeas corpus action. For the reasons stated below, 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. Petitioner does not set forth any intelligible bases or grounds for relief. As the petition raises no issues cognizable in habeas corpus, the petition is denied and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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. Dated: November 21, 2013 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.
