Cobb v. Superintendent

Filing 2

OPINION AND ORDER dismissing without prejudice 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 9/30/2014. (rmc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
DAVID COBB,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Defendant.

CAUSE NO. 3:14-CV-1919

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Petition Under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State
Custody, filed by Petitioner, David Cobb, a pro se prisoner, on
September 24, 2014. For the reasons set forth below, this petition
(DE 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

BACKGROUND
Petitioner, David Cobb, has filed a habeas corpus petition
attempting to challenge his recent conviction for an undisclosed
criminal offense in the St. Joseph County Circuit Court under cause
number 71C01-1406-PO-935.

Mr. Cobb was convicted on August 28,

2014, and is currently incarcerated at the St. Joseph County Jail.
Mr. Cobb states that he has not presented any of his claims for
review in the state courts prior to filing the instant petition.

DISCUSSION
Before a petitioner can challenge a state proceeding, he 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, 1025-1026 (7th Cir. 2004).

Simply put, Mr. Cobb must appeal

his conviction through the Indiana Court of Appeals and then ask
the Indiana Supreme Court to take the case.
Here, based on his petition, it is clear that Mr. Cobb has not
yet done this.

Mr. Cobb admits that he has not appealed his

conviction to any state courts. Because Mr. Cobb has not presented
his claims to the state courts, this court may not grant him habeas
corpus relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A).

Therefore, the petition

will be dismissed, but the dismissal will be without prejudice to
his right to pursue federal habeas relief once he exhausts his
available state court remedies.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this petition (DE 1) is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DATED: September 30, 2014

/s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court