NEELY-BEYTARIK-EL v. SUPERINTENDENT

Filing 5

ENTRY concerning selected matters-The petr shall have through 8/23/2012 to pay the $5.00 filing fee or demonstrate his inability to do so. The petrs custodian is the proper resp and that official is now substituted as the respondent. The Petr shall supplement his petition through 8/23/2012. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 7/30/2012 (copy mailed to the petr)(CBU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
DERRICK DION NEELY-BEYTARIK- EL,
vs.

Petitioner,

SUPERINTENDENT, Correctional
Industrial Facility,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:12-cv-986-JMS-MJD

Entry Concerning Selected Matters
The court, having considered the above action and the matters which are
pending, makes the following rulings:
1.
The petitioner shall have through August 23, 2012, in which to
either pay the $5.00 filing fee for this action or demonstrate his financial inability to
do so.
2.
The petitioner’s custodian is the proper respondent and that official is
now substituted as the respondent.
3.
ADistrict courts should not have to read and decipher tomes disguised
as pleadings.@ Lindell v. Houser, 442 F.3d 1033, 1035 n.1 (7th Cir. 2006). This fully
applies to the awkward and confused verbiage which Derrick Dion Neely-BeytarikEl has compiled in his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Federal habeas corpus
jurisdiction is limited to evaluating alleged violations of federal statutory or
constitutional law. Wilson v. Corcoran, 131 S. Ct. 13, 16 (2010)(“But it is only
noncompliance with federal law that renders a State's criminal judgment
susceptible to collateral attack in the federal courts. The habeas statute

unambiguously provides that a federal court may issue the writ to a state prisoner
‘only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or
treaties of the United States.’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). And we have repeatedly held that
federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law. It is not the province
of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law
questions.”) (some internal citations and quotations omitted).
4.
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 August 23, 2012,
in which to supplement his petition for a writ of habeas corpus by doing the
following:
!
First, he shall re-state with clarity each of the claims he asserts
in this action and shall explain the facts or circumstances (not the law)
supporting each such claim.
!
Second, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2254(d)(1), the petitioner shall
supplement his petition by identifying with respect to each of his claims in
what sense, if any, the state court's adjudication (i) resulted in a decision that
was contrary to clearly established Federal Law, as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States or (ii) resulted in a decision which was
an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal Law, as
determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. The petitioner shall
also, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2254(d)(2), identify with respect to each of his
claims, in what sense 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

07/30/2012
Date: __________________
Distribution:
Derrick Dion Neely-Beytarik-El
#973338
Correctional Industrial Facility
5124 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, IN 46064

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