Kuchel v. Warden

Filing 4

OPINION AND ORDER: The 2 petition is DISMISSED pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4 because it is duplicative; Charles Kuchel is DENIED a certificate of appealability pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 11; Charles Kuchel is DE NIED leave to appeal in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); The Clerk is DIRECTED to transfer the filings in this case to Kuchel v. Warden, 3:17-cv-871; and The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 1/29/2018. (tc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
CHARLES KUCHEL,
Petitioner,
v.

WARDEN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:18-CV-15-PPS-MGG

Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
Charles Kuchel, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a habeas corpus petition to
challenge the calculation of his sentences for criminal deviate conduct, criminal
recklessness, criminal confinement, and battery under Cause No. SCR 83-47 and for
criminal confinement and criminal deviate conduct under Cause No. SCR 83-43.
Following a jury trial in Cause No. SCR 83-43, on October 19, 1984, the Marshall County
Superior Court sentenced Kuchel to fifty years of incarceration. Following a jury trial in
Cause No. SCR 83-47, on March 17, 1988, the Marshall County Superior Court
sentenced Kuchel to seventy years of incarceration.
Kuchel alleges that he has been incarcerated for nearly ten years beyond his
proper release date and seeks immediate release from custody. However, this is not the
only time Kuchel has filed a habeas petition to challenge the calculation of his sentence.
He is currently proceeding on an identical claim in Kuchel v. Warden, 3:17-cv-871-PPS-

MGG (N.D. Ind. filed November 19, 2017). “The district court has broad discretion to
dismiss a complaint for reasons of wise judicial administration whenever it is
duplicative of a parallel action already pending in another federal court.” McReynolds v.
Merrill Lynch & Co., 694 F.3d 873, 888 (7th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“A suit is duplicative if the claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly differ
between the two actions.” Id. at 889. Because Kuchel proceeds on a claim in this case
that duplicates one he is already pursuing in another case, this case is dismissed.
However, I recognize the possibility that, by filing this petition, Kuchel attempted to
amend his petition in Kuchel v. Warden, 3:17-cv-871, rather than open a new case.
Therefore, I will order that the filings in this case be transferred to Kuchel v. Warden,
3:17-cv-871.
ACCORDINGLY:
(1) The petition (ECF 2) is DISMISSED pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus
Rule 4 because it is duplicative;
(2) Charles Kuchel is DENIED a certificate of appealability pursuant to Section
2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 11;
(3) Charles Kuchel is DENIED leave to appeal in forma pauperis pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3);
(4) The Clerk is DIRECTED to transfer the filings in this case to Kuchel v. Warden,
3:17-cv-871; and
(5) The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.
SO ORDERED on January 29, 2018.

_/s Philip P. Simon__________
Judge
United States District Court