Slusser v. Attorney General, State of Floridaa et al

Filing 9

OPINION AND ORDER re 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus - State filed by Petitioner Rodney R Slusser. The Petition is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Petitioner CAUTIONED that if he files another meritless challenge to his State criminal charges he may be fined, sanctioned or restricted. Clerk DIRECTED to close case. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 4/6/17. (Copy mailed to pro se party).(cer)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
RODNEY R. SLUSSER,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF MICHIGAN, STATE
OF INDIANA, U.S. JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:17-CV-235

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Petition under 28
U.S.C. Paragraph 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Rodney R.
Slusser, a pro se prisoner, on March 6, 2017, in the Middle
District of Florida. For the reasons set forth below, the Court
DENIES the habeas corpus petition WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Rodney R.
Slusser is CAUTIONED that if he files another meritless challenge
to his State criminal charges, he may be fined, sanctioned, or
restricted. The clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.

DISCUSSION
Slusser is still being held in the Starke County Jail as a
pre-trial detainee. He is again attempting to challenge a pending
State criminal proceeding. This is the third time he has tried to

do so. In both Slusser v. Superintendent, 3:16-CV-607 (N.D. Ind.
filed September 12, 2016), and Slusser v. Superintendent, 3:17CV-197 (N.D. Ind. filed March 6, 2017), this Court explained that
he cannot challenge the State criminal charges against him until
after he is convicted and after he has properly presented his
claims to the Indiana Supreme Court. See Lewis v. Sternes, 390
F.3d 1019, 1025-1026 (7th Cir. 2004). Both of his prior cases were
dismissed without prejudice.
Now he has filed this habeas corpus petition in the Middle
District of Florida. Doing so was an abuse of the judicial process.
Slusser is incarcerated in Indiana. There was no basis for filing
this case in Florida. Indeed, there was no basis for filing this
case anywhere. Slusser already knows that he does not have a valid
habeas corpus claim at this time. This case is a waste of judicial
resources.

Federal

constitutional

courts

obligation

have
to

both

protect

the

inherent

their

power

jurisdiction

and
from

conduct which impairs their ability to carry out Article III
functions.”

In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 185 n.8 (1989) (quoting

In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F. 2d 1254, 1261 (2nd Cir. 1984)). Though
the Court will not sanction Slusser for filing this case, if he
files another meritless case attempting to challenge his State
criminal charges, he is cautioned that he may be fined, sanctioned,
or restricted because “[a]busers of the judicial process are . .

2

. to be sanctioned.” Free v. United States, 879 F.2d 1535, 1536
(7th Cir. 1989).”

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES the habeas
corpus petition WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Rodney R. Slusser is CAUTIONED
that if he files another meritless challenge to his State criminal
charges, he may be fined, sanctioned, or restricted. The clerk is
DIRECTED to close this case.

DATED: April 6, 2017

/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court

3