Gittens v. Rushing et al, No. 4:2009cv01568 - Document 4 (N.D. Ohio 2009)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Related doc. 1 ). This action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Further, 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 Dan Aaron Polster on 9/9/2009. (B,IE)

Download PDF
Gittens v. Rushing et al Doc. 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO RYAN O. GITTENS, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner, v. WARDEN RUSHING, et al., Respondents. CASE NO. 4:09 CV 1568 JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On July 9, 2009, petitioner pro se Ryan O. Gittens filed the above-captioned habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Gittens, who is incarcerated at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center (NEOCC), alleges that he was stabbed by another NEOCC inmate who was known to have mental problems and had previously threatened other inmates and staff. It is further alleged, among other things, that Gittens did not receive appropriate medical treatment for his injuries, was denied telephone privileges and put on commissary restriction, and that his religiously based dietary needs were not accommodated. Gittens seeks transfer to another prison. As appropriate confinement. a threshold vehicle for matter, habeas challenging the corpus is conditions not of the one's Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 498-99 (1973); Dockets.Justia.com Young v. Martin, No. 02-2518, 83 Fed.Appx. 107, 109 (Dec. 5, 2003); Okoro v. Scibana, No. 1322, 1999 WL 1252871 (6th Cir. Dec. 15, 1999). Further, an inmate has no liberty interest in a prison transfer regardless of the differing conditions of confinement. Bazetta v. McGinnis, 430 F.3d 795, 804 (6th Cir. 2005)(citing Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 228 (1976)). Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied and this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Further, 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/Dan Aaron Polster 9/9/09 DAN AARON POLSTER 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.