Hall v. Superintendent
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court DISMISSES this case pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4 because all of the claims are procedurally defaulted; DENIES a certificate of appealability pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 11; DENIES leave to appeal in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); and DIRECTS the clerk to close this case. Signed by Judge Jon E DeGuilio on 7/6/2017. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(lhc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
ERVIN R. HALL,
Case No. 3:17-CV-425-JD-MGG
OPINION AND ORDER
Ervin R. Hall, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition attempting to
challenge the revocation of his parole by the Indiana Parole Board during a hearing on January 11,
2016. ECF 1 at 1. However, before a petitioner can challenge a State proceeding in a federal habeas
corpus petition, 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, 10251026 (7th Cir. 2004). Thus, this court may only review Hall’s parole revocation if he has exhausted
his State court remedies.
Here, Hall filed a writ of habeas corpus in the State trial court and appealed its denial to
the Court of Appeals of Indiana. ECF 1 at 2. However, he did not file a petition to transfer to the
Indiana Supreme Court. Id. Moreover, his time to do so has expired. Ind. R. App. P. 57(C) (“[a]
Petition to Transfer shall be filed: (1) no later than thirty (30) days after the adverse decision if
rehearing was not sought; or (2) if rehearing was sought, no later than thirty (30) days after the
Court of Appeals’ disposition of the Petition for Rehearing”). The Court of Appeals of Indiana
denied his habeas corpus appeal on February 18, 2016. ECF 1 at 2. Hall does not assert that he
sought a rehearing in the Court of Appeals. Hall thus had until March 21, 2016 to seek a transfer
to the Indiana Supreme Court. See Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure 9, 25(A). Because it is
too late to do so, his claims are procedurally defaulted and this habeas corpus petition must be
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must consider
whether to grant a certificate of appealability. When the court dismisses a petition on procedural
grounds, the determination of whether a certificate of appealability should issue has two
components. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). First, the petitioner must show that
reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether the court was correct in its procedural ruling.
Id. at 484. If the petitioner meets that requirement, then he must show that reasonable jurists would
find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim for the denial of a constitutional right. Id.
As previously explained, this petition is procedurally defaulted. Because there is no basis for
finding that jurists of reason would debate the correctness of this procedural ruling, a certificate of
appealability must be denied. For the same reasons, he may not appeal in forma pauperis because
an appeal could not be taken in good faith.
For the foregoing reasons the court DISMISSES this case pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas
Corpus Rule 4 because all of the claims are procedurally defaulted; DENIES a certificate of
appealability pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 11; DENIES leave to appeal in forma
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); and DIRECTS the clerk to close this case.
ENTERED: July 6, 2017
/s/ JON E. DEGUILIO
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?