Pruitt v. Superintendent
Filing
3
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4. Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 11/26/2013. ***Civil Case Terminated (lyb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
STEVE PRUITT,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-1215-TS
OPINION AND ORDER
Steve Pruitt, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition [ECF No. 1] attempting to
challenge the result of a parole revocation hearing that was held on October 7, 2013, at the
Reception and Diagnostic Center. He argues that it was wrong for the Indiana Parole Board to
have not promptly held a hearing in Lucas County, Ohio, when he was arrested and detained
there. However, before the court can consider a habeas corpus petition challenging a state
proceeding, the petitioner 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, 1025–26 (7th Cir. 2004) (citing O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999)).
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, Pruitt says
that he has not presented his claims to any state court in any proceeding. Therefore he has not
exhausted his state court remedies and this case must be dismissed without prejudice so that he
can exhaust these claims in the state courts. If, after he has ultimately presented his claims to the
Indiana Supreme Court, he has not yet obtained relief, then he may return to federal court and
file a new habeas corpus petition.
For the foregoing reasons, this federal habeas corpus petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4.
SO ORDERED on November 26, 2013.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
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?