Reeves v. Sloan, No. 5:2016cv02909 - Document 4 (N.D. Ohio 2017)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Petitioner's Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # 2 ). This action is dismissed without prejudice. An appeal from this decision may not be taken in good faith and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. Judge John R. Adams on 1/25/17. (K,C)

Download PDF
Reeves v. Sloan Doc. 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WILLIAM REEVES, Petitioner, v. BRIGHAM SLOAN, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 5:16 CV 2909 JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER On December 2, 2016, petitioner pro se William Reeves, an inmate at the Lake Erie Correctional Institution, filed the above-captioned in forma pauperis petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition indicates Reeves challenges his convictions, pursuant to a guilty plea, of “drug charges.” For the reasons stated below, the petition is denied and this action is dismissed. 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, petitioner must have exhausted all available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). As grounds for the petition, Reeves asserts he is being held on an expired sentence. It is apparent of the face of the petition, however, that he has an action pending in the Ohio Court of Appeals raising this issue. Without regard to the potential merits of the ground sought to be raised herein, Reeves has not yet exhausted his state court remedies. The petition is thus premature. Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, 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. /s/ John R. Adams JOHN R. ADAMS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Date: January 25, 2017 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.