IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

KREIGHAMMER VONNJORDSSON, CASE NO. 2:17-CV-949 

 JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM 

 Petitioner, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

 v. 

WARDEN, OHIO STATE 

PENITENTIARY, 

 Respondent. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is before the Court on its own motion to consider the sufficiency of 

the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 

District Courts. For the reasons that follow, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that this 

action be DISMISSED. 

 Petitioner indicates that he is presently incarcerated for corruption of a minor.1

 He 

complains that prison official refuse to provide him with sexual offender treatment and requests 

that the Court order prison officials to provide him with treatment. 

 Petitioner has failed to present an issue appropriate for federal habeas corpus relief. 

Section 2254(a) provides that a federal court “shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas 

corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the 

ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 

                                                            

1 The Court notes, however, Petitioner, having already served his sentence for the charge of 

corruption of a minor, is presently in prison for murder and tampering with evidence. State of 

Ohio v. Vonnjordsson, No. 24157, 2009 WL 457919 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2009). 
2

States.” A petition for a writ of habeas corpus traditionally has been available when the 

petitioner is in custody or threatened with custody and the detention is related to a claimed 

constitutional violation. Kirby v. Dutton, 794 F.2d 245, 246 (6th Cir. 1986). “‘[T]he essence of 

habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody, and. . . the 

traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.'" Preiser v. Rodriguez, 

411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). 

Petitioner asserts that the Warden denied him access to sex offender treatment and 

instead encouraged him to kill himself. (Petition, at p.1.) This claim, if at all, relates to his 

conditions of confinement. Claims relating to the condition of a prisoner’s confinement or 

treatment by prison officials may be brought in a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Recommended Disposition 

Therefore, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED. The 

Clerk is DIRECTED to provide a copy of the Petition to Respondent and the Attorney General 

of Ohio, Habeas Corpus Unit of the Corrections Litigation Section c/o 

Brian.Higgins@ohioattorneygeneral.gov and Habeas.docketclerk@ohioattorneygeneral.gov

Procedure on Objections 

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen 

days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those specific 

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with supporting 

authority for the objection(s). A judge of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those 

portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is 

made. Upon proper objections, a judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or 
3

in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further evidence or may 

recommit this matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1). 

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and 

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the district judge review the Report 

and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of 

the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 

The parties are further advised that, if they intend to file an appeal of any adverse 

decision, they may submit arguments in any objections filed, regarding whether a certificate of 

appealability should issue. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: November 1, 2017 

 _s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

 Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

 United States Magistrate Judge