Sheneman v. Jones et al
OPINION AND ORDER. The stay in this case is LIFTED and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 6/1/16. (cc: Michael Sheneman). (cer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
DAVID P. JONES, and NEWBY, LEWIS,
KAMINSKI, JONES, LLP,
CAUSE NO.: 3:13-CV-1155 TLS
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a diversity action brought by Michael Sheneman, a pro se prisoner, alleging that
David P. Jones (and his law firm) committed malpractice while representing him during his
federal criminal proceedings. Those proceedings are United States v. Sheneman, 3:10-CR-126
(N.D. Ind. filed Oct. 13, 2010) and United States v. Sheneman, 682 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2012).
Because Sheneman was raising the ineffectiveness of Jones in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion
challenging his convictions, the parties agreed to stay this case pending the resolution of
Sheneman v. United States, 3:12-CV-720 (N.D. Ind. filed November 7, 2012). Accordingly, on
September 29, 2014, this Court issued an order staying the case based on the parties’ agreement
[ECF No. 23]. Neither party disputes that Sheneman v. United States, 3:12-CV-720 (N.D. Ind.
filed November 7, 2012) concluded when the Seventh Circuit denied a certificate of appealability
on April 28, 2016. Sheneman v. United States, No. 15-2939, slip op. at 1 (7th Cir. Apr. 28, 2016).
The Defendants ask to lift the stay and dismiss the case because the unsuccessful
adjudication of his § 2255 motion collaterally estops Sheneman from proceeding with this
malpractice case. Godby v. Whitehead, 837 N.E.2d 146, 152 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). Sheneman
argues that the stay should remain because he has filed ineffective assistance of counsel claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Northern District of Ohio. Sheneman has filed three such
cases, each one shortly after the previous one was summarily dismissed. In the first case, the
court ruled that “[t]he petition sets forth no reasonable suggestion of a proper basis on which to
raise these issues pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” Sheneman v. United States, Case No. 4:15-CV1907, slip op. at 2 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 26, 2015). In the second case, the court ruled “he is not
entitled to any relief by way of § 2241.” Sheneman v. Hanson, Case No. 4:15-CV-2554, 2016
WL 1084253, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 10, 2016). Although a third case was recently filed,
Sheneman v. United States, Case No. 4:16-CV-1153 (N.D. Ohio filed May 16, 2016), that is not
a basis for maintaining the stay. Alternatively, Sheneman asks for this case to proceed with the
litigation of the merits of his claims. Even though his first § 2241 case is pending on appeal in
the Sixth Circuit, the merits of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims were nevertheless
conclusively adjudicated in his § 2255 proceeding. Therefore, he is collaterally estopped from
relitigating those issues in this court.
Collateral estoppel, as is relevant to this case, was explained by the Indiana Court of
Appeals, and its commentary is instructive.
[A] finding that counsel was not ineffective can provide the necessary identity of
issues to preclude malpractice actions stemming from the same proceedings. In
Belford, the plaintiff sued his lawyer, Daniel Byron, and Byron’s law firm,
McHale Cook & Welch (MCW), alleging legal malpractice. Particularly, Belford
claimed that Byron committed legal malpractice when he represented Belford
against charges that he conspired to make fraudulent statements and
representations to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Belford pleaded
guilty to those charges but later filed a motion to collaterally attack the validity of
his guilty plea and sentence, in part, because Byron was ineffective. The District
Court denied his motion, and on appeal, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Then, Belford filed a complaint against Byron and MCW for legal
malpractice. The trial court entered partial summary judgment in favor of Byron
and MCW, and Belford appealed. On appeal, Belford claimed that the finding by
the Federal District Court, later affirmed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals,
that he did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel should not act to
collaterally estop his malpractice claims stemming from the same proceedings.
Relying on Judge Shields’ concurrence in Hockett, we rejected his contention and
held that the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel was decided unfavorably to
him and affirmed in a decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Therefore, Belford had been afforded a fair opportunity to litigate his claim that he
was denied the effective assistance of counsel.
Godby, 837 N.E.2d at 152 ( internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
For these reasons, the stay is LIFTED and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
SO ORDERED on June 1, 2016.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
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?