Lapriest v. Shartle, No. 4:2010cv01579 - Document 6 (N.D. Ohio 2010)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order: 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. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 9/30/10. (LC,S) re 1

Download PDF
Lapriest v. Shartle Doc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO GARY LAPRIEST, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner, v. J.T. SHARTLE, Respondent. CASE NO. 4:10 CV 1579 JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On July 16, 2010, petitioner pro se Gary Lapriest filed the above-captioned habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Lapriest, who is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution at Elkton, alleges that he has been subjected to repeated strip frisk searches, violating his Fourth Amendment rights. Habeas corpus is not the appropriate vehicle challenging the conditions of one's confinement. for Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 498-99 (1973); Young v. Martin, No. 022518, 83 Fed.Appx. 107, 109 (6th Cir. Dec. 5, 2003); Okoro v. Scibana, No. 1322, 1999 WL 1252871 (6th Cir. Dec. 15, 1999). Further, to obtain the relief petitioner seeks, the appropriate Dockets.Justia.com action would be to file a civil rights complaint.1 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/ Patricia A. Gaughan PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: 9/30/10 1 To file a civil rights action, petitioner would be required either to pay the $350 filing fee or to file a prisoner account statement so that the court would have sufficient financial information to assess and collect the filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915; McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997). -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.