Brooks v. Warden Gunja, No. 4:2008cv01147 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2008)
Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 6/27/08 dismissing this case pursuant to 28 USC Sec. 2243 and certifying that an appeal could not be taken in good faith. (Related Doc. 1 ) (M,G)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Brooks v. Warden Gunja Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO BRYAN BROOKS, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner, v. WARDEN GUNJA, Respondent. CASE NO. 4:08 CV 1147 JUDGE JAMES S. GWIN MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On May 7, 2008, petitioner pro se Bryan Brooks, an inmate at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center (NEOCC), filed the abovecaptioned habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner seeks an order reducing his federal sentence by three days for each day served at NEOCC, on the ground that “the 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.” cites numerous cases in support of his request. Petitioner See Petition, pp. 4-5. As appropriate confinement. a threshold vehicle for matter, habeas challenging the corpus is conditions not of the one's Abuhouran v. Morrison, No. 02-3427, 49 Fed.Appx. 349 (6th Cir. Sept. 18, 2002); Okoro v. Scibana, No. 99-1322, 1999 WL Dockets.Justia.com 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 26, 2008 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.
