Sims v. Superintendent
Filing
5
OPINION AND ORDER denying 4 Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal of Petition. Signed by Judge William C Lee on 10/17/11. (jld)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
MICHAEL SIMS,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
SUPERINTENDENT, WABASH
)
VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, )
)
Respondent.
)
CAUSE NO. 3:11-CV-0297 WL
OPINION AND ORDER
Michael Sims, a prisoner confined at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, filed
a motion for declaratory judgment against the State of Indiana pursuant to the Declaratory
Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, which was docketed as 3:11cv147 JD. Mr. Sims asserted
in that case that “Declaratory Judgment is appropriate to clear up an actual controversy
concerning Petitioner[‘s] sentencing and convictions . . .“ [DE 1 at 1]. He stated that “the
Elkhart Superior Court imposed an erroneous sentence . . . and refuse[s] to correct it.” ld.
The Court concluded that because Mr. Sims’s claims implicate the fact or duration of his
confinement and because he is a state prisoner, he must bring his challenge to the sentence
imposed on him by the Elkhart Superior Court in petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2254. The court dismissed Mr. Sims’s motion for declaratory
judgment without prejudice to his right to present his claims in a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Mr. Sims subsequently filed the petition for writ of habeas corpus in this case
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction. This Court reviewed his petition
pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, and concluded that his
petition would have to be dismissed because it is barred by the statute of limitations (DE
2).
Mr. Sims has filed a motion to reconsider that dismissal, arguing that the court in
3:11cv147 JD told him that he “may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus raising these
claims” (DE 4 at 1). He then argues that since the court “stated that petitioner has a right
to present his claims in a petition for writ of habeas corpus . . . [it] . . . somewhat repudiated
the one-year statute of limitation on state prisoners seeking habeas relief” (DE 4 at 1-2).
But that the court in 3:11cv147 JD told Mr. Sims that he could file a petition for
habeas corpus in no way relieved him of the obligation to file a timely petition for writ of
habeas corpus. This Court has concluded that Mr. Sims’s petition for writ of habeas corpus
is untimely, and he does not assert that this Court’s analysis regarding the statute of
limitations was incorrect.
For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES the Petitioner’s motion to
reconsider the dismissal of his petition (DE 4).
SO ORDERED
DATED: October 17, 2011
s/William C. Lee
William C. Lee, Judge
United States District Court
2
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?