Robinson v. Duffey, No. 3:2014cv01012 - Document 11 (N.D. Ohio 2014)
Court Description: Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 7/3/14 denying petitioner's motion for equitable relief. (Related Docs. 8 , 9 , 10 ) (M,G)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Robinson v. Duffey Doc. 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ------------------------------------------------------: GERALD ROBINSON, : : Petitioner, : : v. : : SHERRI DUFFEY, : : Respondent. : ------------------------------------------------------- CASE NO. 3:14-CV-1012 OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Docs. 8, 9, & 10] JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: On May 8, 2014, Petitioner Gerald Robinson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S. C. § 2254.1/ On June 20, 2014, after he suffered a heart attack, Petitioner Robinson filed a motion for equitable relief requesting that he be released to the care of his brother and sister-in-law during his final days.2/ He is expected to die in 30 to 60 days.3/ He is currently serving a sentence of 15 years to life for the 1980 murder of Sister Margaret Ann Pahl. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for equitable relief. The Court concludes that it does not have jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. “There is no constitutional or inherent right of a convicted person to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence.”4/ Further, “neither § 2241 nor § 2254 vest this Court with habeas corpus jurisdiction to order a compassionate release.”5/ Under state law, Ohio Revised Code § 2967.05(B) “vests only Ohio's governor—not this Court—with discretion to 1/ Doc. 1. 2/ Doc. 10. 3/ Id. 4/ Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979). 5/ Fox v. Warden Ross Correctional Inst., No. 2:12–cv–476, 2012 WL 3878143, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 6, 2012), adopted, 2012 WL 5198362 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 19, 2012); see also Tucker v. Dep't of Corr., 2:13-CV-0293 GGH P, 2013 WL 1091282 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2013). Dockets.Justia.com Case No. 3:14-CV-1012 Gwin, J. order an inmate’s release” on compassionate grounds.6/ The statute says ““[u]pon the recommendation of the director of rehabilitation and correction, accompanied by a certificate of the attending physician that an inmate is terminally ill, . . . the governor may order the inmate's release.”7/ Thus, the governor, not the courts, can grant compassionate release for state prisoners. However, Petitioner Robinson may not be eligible under this statute because it excludes prisoners serving time for murder.8/ Further, Petitioner Robinson is ineligible for relief under the comparable federal statute. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1) (A)(i), the Director of the Bureau of Prisons has discretion to file a motion for compassionate release with the district court.9/ Courts cannot sua sponte grant compassionate release.10/ Additionally, “neither § 2241 nor § 2254 empower[s] this Court with habeas corpus jurisdiction to review any denial of a compassionate release request under Ohio Revised Code § 2967.05.”11/ Since the language of the Ohio statute is permissive, not mandatory, it fails to create a liberty interest in compassionate release and any denial of a compassionate release request is therefore unreviewable.12/ 6/ Fox, 2012 WL 3878143, at *2. 7/ Ohio Rev. Code § 2967.05(B). Id. at §2967.05(C). 8/ 9/ 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1) (A)(I).; see also Engle v. United States, 26 F. App'x 394, 397 (6th Cir. 2001) (“[D]istrict court[s] lack[ ] jurisdiction to sua sponte grant compassionate release. A district court may not modify a defendant's federal sentence based on the defendant's ill health, except upon a motion from the Director of the Bureau of Prisons.”). 10/ Id. 11/ Fox, 2012 WL 3878143, at *2. 12/ Id. -2- Case No. 3:14-CV-1012 Gwin, J. For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for equitable relief. IT IS SO ORDERED Dated: July 3, 2014 s/ James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -3-
]]>
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.
