IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

David Carl Letner, Case No. 4:20 cv 1592

Petitioner, -vs- JUDGE PAMELA A. BARKER

Mark Williams Warden, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Respondent.

Pro se Petitioner David Carl Letner, a federal inmate incarcerated at FCI Elkton (“Elkton”), has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under

. (Doc. No. 1.) He seeks release to home confinement on the basis of COVID-19 circumstances in the prison. He indicates he is 67 years old, has COPD, and contracted COVID-19 after chronic care inmates at Elkton were ordered quarantined by court order. He contends the facility is unable to provide him a safe and healthy environment to recover in light of his chronic condition. (Id. at 7-8, ¶13.) He also seeks damages. Petitioner indicates on the face of his Petition that he has “recourse” in connection with his complaints by way of a pending case before Judge Gwin. (See Doc. No. 1 at 4, ¶8 (b).) In fact, he has been identified as a member a subclass of medically-vulnerable inmates at Elkton seeking release to home confinement, or other alternative confinement, on the basis of COVID-19 circumstances in Wilson, et al. v. Williams, et al., No. 4: 20 CV 00794 (N.D. Ohio) (see Doc. # 35-1). Federal district courts must conduct an initial review of habeas corpus petitions. See

; Alexander v. Northern Bureau of Prisons,

(6th Cir. 2011). A court must deny a petition “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief” in the district court. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (applicable to § 2241 petitions pursuant to Rule 1(b)). Upon review, the Court finds the Petition is subject to dismissal under Rule 4. A district court may properly dismiss a habeas corpus petition as duplicative where the petition is “essentially the same” as a previously-filed petition. See Davis v. U.S. Parole Com'n,

,

(6th Cir. March 7, 1989). Petitioner’s present petition is duplicative of the still-pending habeas corpus petition in Wilson, in which members of a medically-vulnerable subclass of inmates at Elkton including Petitioner seek release to home or other confinement on the basis of their medical vulnerability and COVID-19 circumstances, as Petitioner also seeks here. See Wilson,

, at *6. Conclusion Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is granted and his Petition is dismissed without prejudice as duplicative of the previously-filed and still pending petition in Wilson pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases. The Court further certifies, pursuant to

(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be

taken in good faith. IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/ Pamela A. Barker PAMELA A. BARKER Date: August 18, 2020 U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE

2