Martz v. Brunsman, No. 5:2009cv01291 - Document 6 (N.D. Ohio 2009)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order: The petition (Related Doc # 1 ) is denied and this action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Further, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and that there is no basis on which to issue a certificate of appealability. Judge Sara Lioi on 9/2/2009. (P,J)

Download PDF
Martz v. Brunsman Doc. 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION LARRY K. MARTZ, Petitioner, v. TIM BRUNSMAN, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 5:09 CV 1291 JUDGE SARA LIOI MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On June 5, 2008, petitioner pro se Larry K. Martz filed the above-captioned petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. ' 2254. Martz seeks to challenge his conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, for having a weapon under disability. He raises three grounds for relief in support of the petition. For the reasons stated below, the petition is denied and this action dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. A federal court may entertain a habeas petition filed by a person in state custody only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. ' 2254(a). In addition, a petitioner must have exhausted all available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. ' 2254(b). It appears evident on the face of the petition that Martz has not yet sought review of his conviction in the Ohio Supreme Court. Such review may be available, see Ohio Sup.Ct.R.P. II, Dockets.Justia.com sec. 2(A)(4)(a), and must be sought in order to exhaust state court remedies. Rust v. Zent, 17 F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir. 1994). 1 Accordingly, the petition is denied and this action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 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, and that there is no basis on which to issue a certificate of appealability. Fed. R.App.P. 22(b); 28 U.S.C. ' 2253. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 2, 2009 HONORABLE SARA LIOI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 Martz=s state habeas action is insufficient for purposes of exhaustion, as such an action may be pursued solely to challenge jurisdiction of the trial court. Ohio Rev.Code ' 2725.05. 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.