Hampton v. Indiana Department of Corrections

Filing 8

OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the opinion and order, the petition is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 3/21/2017. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (tc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION

EDWARD M. HAMPTON,
Petitioner,
vs.
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 1:17-CV-104

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Petition under 28
U.S.C. Paragraph 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Edward M.
Hampton, the pro se petitioner, on March 21, 2017. For the reasons
set forth below, the petition is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DISCUSSION
Edward M. Hampton, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus
petition attempting to challenge his parole revocation. He states
that:
none of these grounds have been presented to a state
court because I have been discharged on all charges and
given time served, there is no court that covers these

issues dealing with State Parole “overreach,” that I
know of, other than you.
DE 1 at 9.
However, there are two possible methods for challenging a
parole revocation in Indiana: by filing a post-conviction relief
petition, Receveur v. Buss, 919 N.E.2d 1235 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010),
or by filing a state habeas corpus petition if the inmate is
seeking immediate release. Lawson v. State, 845 N.E.2d 185, 186
(Ind. Ct. App. 2006). Furthermore, if a state habeas corpus
petition is improperly filed, it will be converted to a postconviction petition. Hardley v. State, 893 N.E.2d 740, 743 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2008) and Ward v. Ind. Parole Bd., 805 N.E.2d 893 (2004).
Before a petitioner can challenge a State proceeding in a
federal habeas corpus petition, he must have previously presented
his claims to the State courts. “This means that the petitioner
must raise the issue at each and every level in the state court
system, including levels at which review is discretionary rather
than mandatory.” Lewis v. Sternes, 390 F.3d 1019, 1025-1026 (7th
Cir. 2004). Because Hampton has not yet presented his claims to
the State courts, this habeas corpus petition must be dismissed
without prejudice.

2

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the petition is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DATED: March 21, 2017

/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court

3