Letner v. U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio, No. 4:2020cv01592 - Document 3 (N.D. Ohio 2020)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order: For reasons set forth in this order, Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2 ) is granted and his Petition is dismissed without prejudice as duplicative of the previously-filed and still pending petition in Wilson pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases. Entered by Judge Pamela A. Barker on 8/18/2020. (L,Ja)

Download PDF
Letner v. U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio Doc. 3 Case: 4:20-cv-01592-PAB Doc #: 3 Filed: 08/18/20 1 of 2. PageID #: 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO David Carl Letner, Case No. 4:20 cv 1592 Petitioner, -vs- JUDGE PAMELA A. BARKER Mark Williams Warden, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Respondent. Pro se Petitioner David Carl Letner, a federal inmate incarcerated at FCI Elkton (“Elkton”), has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 1.) He seeks release to home confinement on the basis of COVID-19 circumstances in the prison. He indicates he is 67 years old, has COPD, and contracted COVID-19 after chronic care inmates at Elkton were ordered quarantined by court order. He contends the facility is unable to provide him a safe and healthy environment to recover in light of his chronic condition. (Id. at 7-8, ¶13.) He also seeks damages. Petitioner indicates on the face of his Petition that he has “recourse” in connection with his complaints by way of a pending case before Judge Gwin. (See Doc. No. 1 at 4, ¶8 (b).) In fact, he has been identified as a member a subclass of medically-vulnerable inmates at Elkton seeking release to home confinement, or other alternative confinement, on the basis of COVID-19 circumstances in Wilson, et al. v. Williams, et al., No. 4: 20 CV 00794 (N.D. Ohio) (see Doc. # 35-1). Federal district courts must conduct an initial review of habeas corpus petitions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Alexander v. Northern Bureau of Prisons, 419 F. App'x 544, 545 (6th Cir. 2011). A Dockets.Justia.com Case: 4:20-cv-01592-PAB Doc #: 3 Filed: 08/18/20 2 of 2. PageID #: 21 court must deny a petition “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief” in the district court. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (applicable to § 2241 petitions pursuant to Rule 1(b)). Upon review, the Court finds the Petition is subject to dismissal under Rule 4. A district court may properly dismiss a habeas corpus petition as duplicative where the petition is “essentially the same” as a previously-filed petition. See Davis v. U.S. Parole Com'n, 870 F.2d 657, 1989 WL 25837, * 1 (6th Cir. March 7, 1989). Petitioner’s present petition is duplicative of the still-pending habeas corpus petition in Wilson, in which members of a medically-vulnerable subclass of inmates at Elkton including Petitioner seek release to home or other confinement on the basis of their medical vulnerability and COVID-19 circumstances, as Petitioner also seeks here. See Wilson, 2020 WL 1940882, at *6. Conclusion Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is granted and his Petition is dismissed without prejudice as duplicative of the previously-filed and still pending petition in Wilson pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases. The Court further 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/ Pamela A. Barker PAMELA A. BARKER U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE Date: August 18, 2020 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.