Opinion
CASE NO. 1:14CV2310
01-30-2015
CHRISTOPHER E. LENHART, Petitioner, v. ALAN LAZAROFF, Warden, Respondent.
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
On October 16, 2014, Pro se Petitioner Christopher E. Lenhart filed the above-captioned habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Lenhart challenges his convictions, pursuant to a guilty plea, for burglary, kidnapping, notice of change of address, and intimidation of crime victim or witness.
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. In addition, a petitioner must have exhausted all available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c).
It is evident on the face of the Petition (ECF No. 1 at PageID #: 5-6) that Lenhart has not exhausted his state court remedies, as he has a post-conviction motion pending in the Cuyahoga County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas (Case No. CR-12-558148-A) in which he asserts he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel—a claim also set forth in the instant case. The petition is thus premature.
Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted, the petition is denied, and this case is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 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. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED. January 30, 2015
Date
/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge