Phillips v. Smith, No. 3:2011cv01205 - Document 6 (N.D. Ohio 2011)

Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 9/21/11. The petition is denied as Petitioner Phillips has failed to exhaust all available state remedies. (Related Doc. 1 ) (M,G)

Download PDF
Phillips v. Smith Doc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO JAMES R. PHILLIPS, JR., Petitioner, v. KEITH SMITH, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 3:11 CV 1205 JUDGE JAMES S. GWIN MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On June 10, 2011, petitioner pro se James R. Phillips, Jr., filed the above-captioned petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Phillips seeks to challenge his 2009 conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, for rape. For the reasons stated below, the petition is denied and this action 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). Phillips seeks to raise five grounds in support of the petition. It appears evident on the face of the petition, however, that he has not yet sought review of his conviction in the Ohio Supreme Court. Such review may be available, see Ohio Sup.Ct.R.P. II, sec. 2(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). Accordingly, 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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: September 21, 2011 s/ James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN 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.