134 F.3d 371 (6th Cir. 1998), 96-3618, Hattie v. Anderson
|Citation:||134 F.3d 371|
|Party Name:||Terrence W. HATTIE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Carl ANDERSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee,and Brian Johnson, et al., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Case Date:||January 12, 1998|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA6 Rule 28 and FI CTA6 IOP 206 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO.
BEFORE: KENNEDY, JONES, and SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judges.
State prisoner Plaintiff Hattie appeals the summary judgment dismissing his action for violation of his civil rights and for habeas relief. Plaintiff challenged parole conditions that required him to complete a sex offender program and restricted his visitation with his children. The district court dismissed his habeas claim because it included both exhausted and unexhausted claims. The district court dismissed his civil rights claim as barred by res judicata. We AFFIRM for the same reasons.
In April 1983, Plaintiff was arrested for robbery, burglary, arid abduction. He was indicted on one count each of aggravated robbery, abduction, felonious assault, and attempted rape. In September 1983, Plaintiff pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery and felonious assault. Two days after the plea hearing, without notice to petitioner, the trial court merged the two remaining unpled counts of the indictment, abduction and attempted rape, into the felonious assault count as "allied offenses of similar import" under Ohio Revised Code§ 2941.25. Ohio Rev.Code Ann. 2941.25 (Anderson 1996). He was sentenced to four to twenty-five years for the robbery and two to fifteen years for the felonious assault.
In January 1992, the Ohio Adult Parole Authority ("OAPA") scheduled Plaintiff's release for March 13, 1992. However, in February 1992, the OAPA required Plaintiff to complete a sex offender program as part of his parole. Plaintiff objected to this condition as "unreasonable" and denied that he was a sex offender or ever convicted of a sex offense. However, Plaintiff's post-sentence report and probation violation report reflected sex offense charges and accusations, one involving his then two-and-a-half year-old step daughter. On March 10, 1992, the OAPA rescinded its decision to parole...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP