Haury v. Superintendent
Filing
25
OPINION AND ORDER dismissing the Petition pursuant to Rule 4 of The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Haury's pending motion 24 MOTION For An Appearance Bond Or Personal Recognizance Bond While Waiting For Habeas Corpus Relief filed by Michael Hunter Haury is denied as moot. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 7/15/2011. (kds)
United States District Court
Northern District of Indiana
MICHAEL HUNTER HAURY,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 3:11-CV-141 JVB
OPINION AND ORDER
Michael Hunter Haury, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 seeking to challenge his 1990 murder conviction in Vanderburgh County. (DE 22.) The
court is obligated to review the petition and dismiss it if “it plainly appears from the petition and
any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. . . .” RULE 4 OF THE RULES
GOVERNING SECTION 2254 CASES. This is Haury’s third attempt to file a petition stating a
cognizable claim for relief. (See DE 1, 20.) In the current petition he lists one ground for relief,
stated as follows:
The Indiana Department of Correction’s [state] employees are currently denying
me the right to: 1) Self Representation by proceeding pro se in court; 2) To
Appeal my criminal conviction and sentence as a pro se litigant; 3) The right to
have my legal motions, writs and other necessary legal instruments in my
possession in order to litigate and/or prosecute a cause of action in an American
Court of Law; and 4) The right to proceed as a legally recognized SOVEREIGN
in the various state, federal and international courts of law under the
UCC/Uniform Commercial Code - Vice Admiralty/Maritime Court.
(DE 22 at 5.)
This ground does not present a cognizable basis for granting habeas relief overturning
Haury’s conviction. Rather, it is apparent that Haury is attempting to raise a claim pertaining to
the conditions of his confinement, specifically, the handling of his legal mail and other legal
documents by prison staff. (See DE 22 at 5-6.) Haury cannot raise claims pertaining to the
conditions of his confinement in a habeas proceeding. See Moran v. Sondalle, 218 F.3d 647, 651
(7th Cir. 2000). While he is free to file a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, subject to the usual
constraints of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), he cannot proceed with the claim in
this action.1
For these reasons, the petition (DE 22) is DISMISSED pursuant to RULE 4 OF THE RULES
GOVERNING SECTION 2254 CASES. Haury’s pending motions (DE 23, 24) are DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED on July 15, 2011.
s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
United States District Judge
Hammond Division
1
It appears that Haury may be attempting to circumvent the requirements of the PLRA by raising his claim
in a habeas petition. He was recently advised by the court that he has incurred three or more strikes for filing
frivolous lawsuits and therefore can no longer proceed under the partial prepayment option unless he is under
imminent risk of serious physical injury. See Haury v. Lemon, 3:11-CV-145-RLM (N.D. Ind. order dated Apr. 14,
2011).
2
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?