BAILEY v. STINE

Filing 38

ENTRY Directing Further Proceedings - Petitioner has filed his amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. The amended habeas petition supplies certain information, but is clearly lacking sufficient information from which the court can conduct the re view required by Rule 4. He shall have through October 12, 2011, in which to supplement the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. (SEE ENTRY). A copy of the docket sheet and a copy of the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus shall be included with the petitioner's copy of this Entry. (copy to Petitioner via US Mail). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/12/2011. (JKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

DEREK BAILEY,
Petitioner,
v.
D. L. STINE,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:10-cv-839-JMS-DKL

Entry Directing Further Proceedings
I.
Habeas petitioner Derek Bailey has filed his amended petition for writ of habeas
corpus. That document is now subject to the preliminary review.
AFederal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that
appears legally insufficient on its face.@ McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994).
This authority is conferred by Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in
United States District Courts, which provides that upon preliminary consideration by the
district court judge, "[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits
annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge shall
make an order for its summary dismissal and cause the petitioner to be notified." See
Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411, 414 (7th Cir. 1993).
The amended habeas petition supplies certain information, but is clearly lacking
sufficient information from which the court can conduct the review required by Rule 4.
He shall have through October 12, 2011, in which to supplement the amended petition
for writ of habeas corpus by setting forth the following information:
1.

What conviction is being challenged, meaning the date of the conviction,
the nature of the offense, the court in which the conviction was entered, and
the sentence imposed for the conviction?

2.

What are the specific legal claims which he asserts to challenge the
conviction?

3.

What are the facts associated with each of the legal claims which he
asserts?

4.

Have the claims he asserts to challenge the conviction been presented to
the Indiana state courts? If so, what was the result of doing so? If not, why
not?
II.

A copy of the docket sheet and a copy of the amended petition for writ of habeas
corpus shall be included with the petitioner’s copy of this Entry.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

09/12/2011
Date: __________________

Distribution:
Derek Bailey
#114596
New Castle Correctional Facility
1000 Van Nuys Road
P.O. Box A
New Castle, IN 47362

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Kelly A. Miklos
Office of the Indiana Attorney General
[e-mail]

Note to Clerk: Processing this document requires actions in addition to docketing and distribution.