United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Jeffrey J. Helmick United States District Judge
se petitioner Isaiah Samuel Meadows, an Ohio prisoner,
has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 1.) In his Petition,
he contends his state and federal constitutional rights were
violated during state criminal proceedings against him in No.
CR-16-607612 in the Cuyahoga County, Ohio Court of Common
Pleas. He seeks “to be released immediately” and
awarded compensatory and punitive damages. (Id. at
public docket in Petitioner's state criminal case
indicates that he pleaded guilty in March 2017 to multiple
offenses, including rape with firearm specifications, and
that he was sentenced to prison on the convictions. He
subsequently appealed his convictions to the Ohio Court of
Appeals, raising multiple assignments of error. After the
State conceded the first assignment of error - that the trial
court violated Petitioner's “Federal and State
constitutional rights to due process of law and Crim. R. 11
when it accepted appellants [sic] guilty pleas without
informing him of the constitutional rights he was waiving in
entering his pleas” - the Court of Appeals reversed his
convictions on November 2, 2017, and remanded the case to the
trial court. State v. Meadows, 2017 -Ohio- 8407,
2017 WL 5036663, at *1 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 2, 2017).
time Petitioner filed his Petition on November 29, 2018, he
was a pre-trial detainee awaiting trial in the remanded case.
The state court docket indicates that in February 2019, he
was tried and convicted by a jury of rape with a firearm
specification, as well other offenses, and that he was
resentenced to prison. The website of the Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction indicates he is currently
incarcerated on his convictions in the Mansfield Correctional
courts must conduct a preliminary review of a habeas
corpus petition to determine “[i]f it plainly
appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4 of the
Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section
2254 Cases (applicable to § 2241 petitions pursuant to
Rule 1(b)). If so, the petition must be summarily dismissed.
See Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir.
1970) (the district court “has a duty to screen out a
habeas corpus petition which should be dismissed for lack of
merit on its face”).
review, I must summarily dismiss the Petition.
petitioner who has been tried and convicted, and who
therefore is “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a
State court” must challenge his conviction or sentence
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Preiser v.
Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). A pretrial detainee
being held at the county jail, however, is not in custody
pursuant to the judgment of a State court, but is instead in
custody pursuant to an indictment, and therefore may pursue
habeas corpus relief under § 2241. See
Smith v. Coleman, 521 Fed.Appx. 444, 447 (6th
Cir. 2013); Jackson v. Shobert, No. 1: 13 CV 840,
2013 WL 4012781 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 6, 2013).
time he filed his Petition, Petitioner was in pretrial
custody awaiting trial. But shortly after he filed his
Petition, he was tried and convicted. He is now in custody
pursuant to that judgment of conviction.
of whether Petitioner's claims are properly brought under
§ 2241 or § 2254 in this context, both statutes
require petitioners to exhaust their available state court
remedies before seeking federal habeas corpus
relief. See Jackson, 2013 WL 4012781 at *1, citing
Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345, 353 (1973)
(exhaustion doctrine applies to § 2241 petitions) and
Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2004) (§ 2254
requires exhaustion of state court remedies).
requires that a petitioner fairly present the substance of
his claims to the highest court in the state, and it is the
petitioner's burden to demonstrate that he has fully and
fairly exhausted the state court remedies available to him
with respect to his claims. Prather v. Rees, 822
F.2d 1418, 1420, n. 3 (6th Cir. 1987). See
also Wagner v. Smith, 581 F.3d 410, 417 (6th
Cir. 2009) (“the doctrine of exhaustion requires that
the same claim under the same theory be presented to the
state courts before raising it in a federal habeas
petition”); Manning v. Alexander, 912 F.2d
878, 881 (6th Cir. 1990) (“The exhaustion
requirement is satisfied when the highest court in the state
in which the petitioner was convicted has been given a full
and fair opportunity to rule on the petitioner's
has not demonstrated on the face of his Petition that he has
fully exhausted his claims in the Ohio courts. Accordingly,