United States Sixth Circuit

In a challenge brought by inmates in Ohio correctional facilities who were sentenced prior to Ohio's enactment of a revised sentencing system in 1996, grant of defendants' motions for dismissal and summary judgment is affirmed as: 1) claims that state law claims were erroneously dismissed were meritless; 2) even if bad faith claims were properly raised, plaintiffs nevertheless failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; 3) due process claims failed; 4) equal protection claims failed as the state's decision not to apply the 1996 sentencing law retroactively and to adopt the 1998 guidelines withstood rational basis review; 5) even assuming the guidelines are laws for ex post facto purposes, retroactive application of the guidelines does not create a sufficient risk of increasing the measure of punishment attached to the underlying crime; and 6) the district court did not err in declining to address plaintiffs' purported habeas claims.

Appellate Information

• Argued 06/01/2007
• Decided 08/10/2007
• Published 08/10/2007

Judges

• Before: MOORE and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges;  McKINLEY, District Judge.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:Leonard W. Yelsky, Yelsky & Lonardo, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellants.  Todd R. Marti, Office of the Attorney General, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees.   ON BRIEF:Leonard W. Yelsky, Norman L. Sirak, Yelsky & Lonardo, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellants.  Todd R. Marti, Office of the Attorney General, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees.