MITCHELL v. BUTTS

Filing 4

ENTRY Directing Further Proceedings - The petitioner shall have through December 21, 2011, in which to supplement his petition for a writ of habeas corpus by supplying the following information (SEE ENTRY). The purpose of directing the petitioner to supplement his petition for writ of habeas corpus as directed above is to permit the petitioner to craft a habeas petition sufficient to support the relief he seeks and sufficient to survive the review required by Rule 4. (copy to Petitioner via US Mail). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 12/1/2011.(JKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
LARRY D. MITCHELL,
Petitioner,
vs.
KEITH BUTTS, Superintendent,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11-cv-1445-JMS-MJD

Entry Directing Further Proceedings
The deferential review commanded by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), codified in part at 28 U.S.C. § 2254, applies to claims which the
Indiana courts adjudicated on their merits. Pursuant to the AEDPA, “a federal court may
issue a writ of habeas corpus only if the state court reached a decision that was either
contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as
determined by the Supreme Court.” Raygoza v. Hulick, 474 F.3d 958, 963 (7th Cir.
2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 404-06 (2000)).
Based on the foregoing, and based also on the fact that notice pleading does not
suffice in an action for habeas corpus relief, see Lloyd v. Van Natta, 296 F.3d 630, 633
(7th Cir. 2002), the petitioner shall have through December 21, 2011, in which to
supplement his petition for a writ of habeas corpus by supplying the following
information:
1.
As to each of the claims asserted in the petition, was it decided on the
merits by the Indiana courts?
2.
As to each of the claims decided on the merits by the Indiana courts, in
what sense, if any, did the state court's adjudication (i) result in a decision that was
contrary to clearly established Federal Law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the
United States or (ii) result in a decision which was an unreasonable application of
clearly established Federal Law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United
States?
3.
As to each of the claims decided on the merits by the Indiana courts, in
what sense, if any, the state court's adjudication resulted in a decision that was based
on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the
state court proceeding?

The purpose of directing the petitioner to supplement his petition for writ of
habeas corpus as directed above is to permit the petitioner to craft a habeas petition
sufficient to support the relief he seeks and sufficient to survive the review required by
Rule 4.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12/01/2011
Date:____________________
_______________________________

Distribution:
Larry D. Mitchell
No. 925971
Pendleton Correctional Facility
4490 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, IN 46064

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