Knight v. Gunja, No. 4:2008cv01920 - Document 6 (N.D. Ohio 2008)

Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order. 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. Judge Kathleen M. O'Malley on 10/7/2008. (H,CM)

Download PDF
Knight v. Gunja Doc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO LORENZO KNIGHT, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner, v. WARDEN GUNJA, Respondent. CASE NO. 4:08 CV 1920 JUDGE KATHLEEN M. O’MALLEY MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On August 8, 2008, petitioner pro se Lorenzo Knight, 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 1252871 (6th Cir. Dec. 15, 1999). Further, the cases cited by Dockets.Justia.com 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/ Kathleen M. O’Malley KATHLEEN M. O’MALLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATED: October 7, 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.