Daily Case Update Archive

As a service to our members, we monitor opinions issued from the Ohio Supreme Court, the Ohio State First District Court of Appeals, and the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  You can read the latest summaries or archived summaries from 2005 or 2006.

If you would like to receive a daily e-mail with same-day case updates, please join our Members-Only discussion list.  Not a member?  Join today!

March 13, 2006

Ohio Supreme Court | Ohio First District | U.S. 6th Circuit - Ohio | U.S. 6th Circuit - Other States
 

TOPICS:
- Habeas corpus relief
- Civil rights action
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinion.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

No Opinion.
 

U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals:  Ohio Cases

 

Lundgren v. Mitchell (March 13, 2006) (Appeal from N.D. Ohio)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0091p-06.pdf
-  Petitioner, Jeffrey D. Lundgren, an Ohio death row prisoner, appeals the November 14, 2001 order and judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted in Ohio state court of five counts of aggravated murder with two death penalty specifications and five counts of kidnapping. The trial court followed the jury's recommendation and sentenced Petitioner to death. This Court certified for appeal Petitioner's claims relating to 1) the trial court's failure to allow the introduction of relevant mitigating evidence, 2) prosecutorial misconduct, and 3) ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt and penalty phases. For the reasons which follow, we AFFIRM the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief and DENY the petition.
 

U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Other States Cases

 

Rinard v. Luoma (March 13, 2006) (Appeal from W.D. Michigan)
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0090p-06.pdf
-  Kimmet Rinard ("Rinard"), a Michigan state prisoner, appeals pro se a district court order dismissing without prejudice his civil rights action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Rinard filed a complaint against eight employees of the Michigan Department of Corrections, alleging that the defendants had confiscated from his cell and refused to permit him to receive all books he ordered, in violation of his right to practice his religion. Rinard alleges that he worships Greek gods and goddesses, but the defendants have determined that he may not have materials depicting naked boys because he is incarcerated for criminal sexual conduct with boys under the age of thirteen.  The district court dismissed Rinard's complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) ("PLRA"), because Rinard had exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to only four of the eight named defendants. On appeal, Rinard concedes that he has not exhausted his remedies against four of the defendants, but argues that he should be able to amend his complaint to delete these defendants. Because this Court has ruled definitively that complaints that contain both exhausted and non-exhausted claims must be dismissed, we affirm. See Jones Bey v. Johnson, 407 F.3d 801, 807 (6th Cir. 2005).
 

Daily Case Updates