Martin v. Superintendent
Filing
3
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as the Petitioner has mistakenly sent his appeal to the wrong court. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case., ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 6/14/17. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (mlc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
JAMAL SALAAM MARTIN,
Petitioner,
vs.
SHERRIFF,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 2:17-CV-235
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 Jamal
Salaam Martin, a pro se petitioner, on May 25, 2017. ECF 1. For
the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the petition (ECF 1)
WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
because
Petitioner
has
mistakenly
sent
his
appeal to the wrong court. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this
case.
DISCUSSION
Jamal Salaam Martin filed two documents titled “Notice of
Appeal”
with
this
Court
attempting
to
challenge
a
contempt
conviction imposed on him by the Superior Court of Lake County in
cases 45G01-1703-F4-14 and 45G01-1611-F4-45 on April 24, 2017. ECF
1, 2. However, both of these filings appear to be Martin’s attempt
to appeal his contempt conviction to the Court of Appeals of
Indiana. Martin sent his documents to the “Appeals Clerk” (ECF 11 at 1, 2-1, at 1), refers to his pleading as an “appeal,” and
does not mention habeas corpus or utilize the court’s habeas corpus
form.
Even if Martin did intend to send these documents to this
Court as a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 USC § 2254,
the Court would be required to dismiss his petition as unexhausted.
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). Here, Martin has not raised a challenge to his contempt
conviction in one complete round of state court review. Until the
state process is complete, Martin cannot obtain habeas corpus
relief in federal court. Id.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES the petition
(ECF 1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE because Petitioner mistakenly sent his
2
appeal to the wrong court. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this
case.
DATED: June 14, 2017
/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?