Harris v. State of Ohio

District Court, S.D. Ohio

Harris v. State of Ohio

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION (DAYTON)

CALESHA M. HARRIS, : Case No. 3:24-cv-295 : Plaintiff, : District Judge Michael J. Newman : Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry vs. : : STATE OF OHIO, et al., : : Defendants. :

ORDER

This prisoner civil rights action is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion for Compassionate Release” and a submission that was docketed as a “Motion to send someone to visit.” (Doc. 2, 9). In the first motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court “Please Consider My Release,” based on the allegations made in the Complaint. (See Doc. 2). This Court does not have the authority in this civil rights case to release her from a custodial judgment issued by a state court. See generally Preiser v. Rodriguez,

411 U.S. 475, 500

(1973) (a habeas corpus action is the sole federal remedy for a state prisoner seeking immediate or speedier release from prison). See also, e.g., Williams v. Ivey, Case No. 2:21-cv-53,

2024 WL 697670

, at *1-2, n.5 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 26, 2024) (finding no basis to grant state prisoner’s motion for compassionate release in a Section 1983 action) (collecting cases). Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 2) is therefore DENIED. Plaintiff’s remaining motion (Doc. 9) includes fifty-seven pages of prior correspondence between Plaintiff and various recipients, including undisclosed individuals (“To Whom It May Concern”), as well as the Ohio Justice and Policy Center, Ohio Court of Claims, Correctional Institution Inspection Committee, and Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. The letters and documents relate to the allegations in the Complaint and include requests for individuals to visit her to address her concerns. The submission does not otherwise include a request for a court order, state with particularity the grounds for seeking an

order, or identify relief sought that is available under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b). Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 9) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: November 18, 2024 /s/ Caroline H. Gentry Caroline H. Gentry United States Magistrate Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown