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)

Download PDF
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?