Stroder v. Superintendent
Filing
2
OPINION AND ORDER dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without prejudice pursuant to SECTION 2254 HABEAS CORPUS RULE 4. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 11/14/11. (ksc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
KENNETH E. STRODER, 3RD,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 3:11 CV 429
OPINION and ORDER
Kenneth E Stroder, 3rd, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition
attempting to challenge his parole revocation. He states that he has not presented his
claims to the state courts.
Inherent in the habeas petitioner’s obligation to exhaust his state court
remedies before seeking relief in habeas corpus, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A),
is the duty to fairly present his federal claims to the state courts. Baldwin v.
Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2004); O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 844-45 (1999);
Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971). “Only if the state courts have had
the first opportunity to hear the claim sought to be vindicated in the federal
habeas proceeding does it make sense to speak of the exhaustion of state
remedies.” Id. at 276. Fair presentment in turn requires the petitioner to assert
his federal claim through one complete round of state-court review, either on
direct appeal of his conviction or in post-conviction proceedings. Boerckel, 526
U.S. at 845. 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. Ibid.
Lewis v. Sternes, 390 F.3d 1019, 1025-1026 (7th Cir. 2004) (parallel citations omitted).
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 post-conviction
petition. Hardley v. State, 893 N.E.2d 740, 743 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008); Ward v. Ind. Parole Bd.,
805 N.E.2d 893 (2004).
Here, Stroder has not filed either of those petitions in state court and has not
presented his claims to the Indiana Supreme Court. Therefore he has not exhausted his
State court remedies and this federal habeas corpus petition must be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to SECTION 2254 HABEAS CORPUS RULE 4.
SO ORDERED.
Date: November 14, 2011
s/James T. Moody
JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?