Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Perotti v. Erdos
United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division, Cincinnati
June 3, 2019
JOHN PEROTTI, Petitioner,
RON ERDOS, Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, Respondent.
J. Dlott, District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Michael R. Merz, Magistrate Judge
habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Petitioner
challenges the May 2016 revocation of his parole (Petition,
ECF No. 1, PageID 4). He reports that he previously filed No.
1:00-cv-527 related to the same claim. Id. at PageID
pleads the following grounds for relief:
Ground One: Respondents have retaliated
against Perotti, both for previous actions, and for appealing
the 5-11-16 continuance [spelling unclear] and have records
of litigation in his master file.
Ground Two: Respondents violated
Perotti's right to be free from erroneous information in
making a decision.
Ground Three: Respondents delayed his
revocation hearing, refused to call his witnesses and
transcripts, delay resulted in inability to defend due to
Ground Four: Petitioner was denied his right
to counsel of choice, access to a law library, before
revocation hearing, subjected to a S.B.2 criteria, is being
held past his statutory maximum sentences.
Id. at PageID 7.
also lists in the attached Memorandum ten supposed causes of
action related to his grounds for relief. They are
1. Respondents have retaliated against petitioner for
exercising his constitutional rights in violation of the
First Amendment to the United States and Ohio constitution as
well as state statute.
2. Respondents have violated 5 U.S.C. §552 and the Ohio
and United States of America [Constitutions] by not keeping
accurate records on petitioner and relying upon the same to
continue him 5 years based upon false information violating
his procedural and substantive due process rights to a fair
hearing based upon accurate facts.
3. Respondent Ohio [Adult Parole Authority
(“APA”)] was notified of the availability of
petitioner for a revocation hearing but failed to hold said
hearing within a reasonable period of time causing
irreparable harm and prejudice to him in violation of State
statute [sic] and constitution.
4. Respondents refusal to hold the formal revocation hearing
while petitioner was on bond and available to the APA caused
petitione[r] irreparable harm and was conspiratorily [sic]
and retalitorily [sic] motivated in violation of state and
federal statutes and constitution.
5. Respondents refusal to allow petitioner access to the law
library, phone, and counsel of choice before the revocation
hearing deprived him of his right to a fair hearing, access
to the courts as guarenteed by state and ...
Buy This Entire Record For