Jackson v. Sloan, No. 1:2016cv03080 - Document 6 (N.D. Ohio 2018)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order: Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this case (Doc. No. 2) is granted, but for the reasons stated above, his §2241 petition and motion for emergency stay is denied and this action is dism issed. I certify, 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 upon which to issue a certificate of appealability as jurists of reason could not conclude that petitioner is entitled to seek relief under §2241. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick on 6/28/2018. (S,AL)

Download PDF
Jackson v. Sloan Doc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Theodore Jackson, Case No. 1:16-cv-3080 Petitioner v. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Brigham Sloan, Respondent Pro se petitioner Theodore Jackson, an Ohio prisoner incarcerated in the Lake Erie Correctional Institution, has filed this action for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2241. (Doc. No. 1.) He asserts his constitutional rights were violated, and seeks an “Emergency Stay,” in connection with a 1981 state court case in which he was convicted of aggravated robbery. See State of Ohio v. Jackson, Case No. CR-81-162099 (Cuyahoga Cty. Ct. of Comm. Pls.). Promptly after the filing of a habeas petition, the district court must undertake a preliminary review of the petition to determine “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing §2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (applicable to §2241 petitions pursuant to Rule 1(b)). If so, the petition must be summarily dismissed. See Allen v. Perini, 26 Ohio Misc. 149, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970) (the district court has “a duty to screen out a habeas corpus petition which should be dismissed for lack of merit on its face”). I must summarily dismiss this petition. District courts are authorized, under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state or federal prisoner who is in custody in violation of 1 Dockets.Justia.com the Constitution of law or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). The Sixth Circuit, however, has made clear “that regardless of the label on the statutory underpinning for [a] petition, habeas petitions of state prisoners are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Byrd v. Bagley, 37 F. App'x 94, 95 (6th Cir. 2002). A petitioner cannot evade the procedural requirements of §2254, included its restrictions on the availability of second and successive petitions, by filing a §2241 petition. See id. Accordingly, petitioner’s asserted claims must be pursued pursuant to §2254 in accordance with its procedural requirements, and not pursuant to §2241. I note that petitioner has already filed at least two prior actions in this district seeking relief from state convictions pursuant to §2254. See Jackson v. Sloan, Case No. 1; 13 CV 1326 (Gaughan, J.); Jackson v. Sloan, No. 1: 15 CV 782 (Lioi, J.). Conclusion Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this case (Doc. No. 2) is granted, but for the reasons stated above, his §2241 petition and motion for emergency stay is denied and this action is dismissed. I certify, 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 upon which to issue a certificate of appealability as jurists of reason could not conclude that petitioner is entitled to seek relief under §2241. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). So Ordered. s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick 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.