Royal v. State of Ohio et al, No. 3:2012cv00123 - Document 4 (N.D. Ohio 2012)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order, this action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Further, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 USC section 1915(a)(3)that an appeal from this decision could n ot 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 USC 2253 re 2 Motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Stacey Y. Royal, 1 filed by Stacey Y. Royal. Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 3/22/12. (E,P)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Royal v. State of Ohio et al Doc. 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO STACEY Y. ROYAL, Petitioner, v. STATE OF OHIO, et al., Respondents ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 3:12 CV 123 JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On January 19, 2012, petitioner pro se Stacey Y. Royal filed the above-captioned petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Royal challenges her October 2010 convictions in the Wood County Court of Common Pleas for telecommunications fraud, insurance fraud, theft, and engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. For the reasons stated below, the petition is denied and this action is dismissed. A federal court may entertain a habeas petition filed by a person in state custody only on the ground that she is in custody in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). In addition, petitioner must have exhausted all available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). It is evident on the face of the petition that Royal has yet to exhaust her direct appeals in the Ohio Courts. (ECF #1, p.2). Thus, without regard to the potential merits of the grounds sought to be raised herein, the petition is premature. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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. Fed.R.App.P. 22(b); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Dan Aaron Polster 3/22/12 DAN AARON POLSTER 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.
