Dogmush v. Warden Gunja, No. 4:2008cv01219 - Document 5 (N.D. Ohio 2008)

Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order denying Petitioner's petition for Habeas Corpus 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. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 07/11/08. (M,M)

Download PDF
Dogmush v. Warden Gunja Doc. 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO IYAD DOGMUSH, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner, v. WARDEN GUNJA, Respondent. CASE NO. 4:08 CV 1219 JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On May 16, 2008, petitioner pro se Iyad Dogmush, 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 “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.” Petitioner cites numerous cases in support of his request. See Petition, p.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. S/Christopher A. Boyko CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE July 11, 2008 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.