Williams v. Warden Gunja, No. 4:2008cv01129 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2008)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order: The petition is denied and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2243. 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. (Related Doc # 1 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 6/27/2008. (P,J)

Download PDF
Williams v. Warden Gunja Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION LAFEAR WILLIAMS, Petitioner, vs. WARDEN GUNJA, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 4:08 CV 1129 JUDGE SARA LIOI MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On May 6, 2008, petitioner pro se Lafear Williams, an inmate at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center (NEOCC), filed the above-captioned habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241. Petitioner seeks an order reducing his federal sentence by two days for each day served at NEOCC, on the ground that Athe conditions at the NEOCC borderline on cruel and unusual punishment and this has caused him to serve a more onerous period of incarceration than that which was contemplated by the sentencing Court.@ Petitioner cites numerous cases in support of his request. See Petition, p.5. As a threshold matter, habeas corpus is not the appropriate vehicle for challenging the conditions of one's confinement. Abuhouran v. Morrison, No. 02-3427, 49 Fed.Appx. 349 (6th Dockets.Justia.com Cir. Sept. 18, 2002); Okoro v. Scibana, No. 99-1322, 1999 WL 1252871 (6th Cir. Dec. 15, 1999). Further, the cases cited by petitioner in support of his request for sentence modification all concern downward departures made by the trial court at sentencing. As such, they are wholly inapplicable here. Accordingly, the petition is denied and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2243. 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. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 27, 2008 HONORABLE SARA LIOI 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.