From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Maurice v. Dist. Attorney of the Cnty. of Cuyahoga

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Dec 16, 2015
CASE NO. 1:15cv2252 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 16, 2015)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:15cv2252

12-16-2015

MAURICE A MAY-DILLARD, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA, Respondent.


JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER

On November 2, 2014, pro se petitioner Maurice A. May-Dillard filed the instant habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner seeks to challenge his Cuyahoga County convictions in 1994 for kidnapping and aggravated robbery, and his 1998 Warren County conviction for possession of a deadly weapon while under detention. Petitioner has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 4. His motion is granted; however, for the reasons that follow, the petition is dismissed.

A federal district court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in state custody only on the ground that the custody violates the Constitution or laws of the United States. Furthermore, the petitioner must have exhausted all available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

As grounds for the petition, May-Dillard asserts that: (1) his detainment is illegal because the Cuyahoga County trial court promised him probation in 1994 and stated on the record that it lacked jurisdiction, (2) his institutional file was "deactivated," and (3) in 1994, someone who was not May-Dillard with five aliases was placed in custody in the Cuyahoga County Sheriff Department's Psychiatric Unit.

Even construing the petition liberally, none of the foregoing grounds sets forth a constitutional basis which might be entitle petitioner to release. As such, this case must be dismissed for failure to raise an issue cognizable in habeas corpus.

Accordingly, the petition is denied pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Furthermore, 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. December 16, 2015
Date

/s/ Benita Y . Pearson

Benita Y. Pearson

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Maurice v. Dist. Attorney of the Cnty. of Cuyahoga

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Dec 16, 2015
CASE NO. 1:15cv2252 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 16, 2015)
Case details for

Maurice v. Dist. Attorney of the Cnty. of Cuyahoga

Case Details

Full title:MAURICE A MAY-DILLARD, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

Date published: Dec 16, 2015

Citations

CASE NO. 1:15cv2252 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 16, 2015)