Filing 18

ENTRY and Order Dismissing Action: The respondent's unopposed motion to dismiss [Dkt 16] is granted. The court therefore denies acertificate of appealability ***SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 6/14/2013. Copy sent to William Fraunfelder via US Mail. (DW)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION WILLIAM S. FRAUNFELDER, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner, vs. SUPERINTENDENT, NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Respondent. 1:13-cv-135-WTL-TAB Entry and Order Dismissing Action I. The respondent’s unopposed motion to dismiss [Dkt 16] is granted because the habeas petition does not allege a claim cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), Perruquet v. Briley, 390 F.3d 505, 511 (7th Cir. 2004)(“To say that a petitioner's claim is not cognizable on habeas review is thus another way of saying that his claim ‘presents no federal issue at all.’”)(quoting Bates v. McCaughtry, 934 F.2d 99, 101 (7th Cir. 1991), and because even if such a claim could be discerned from the habeas petition the petitioner has not satisfied the exhaustion requirement of the federal habeas statute. Lewis v. Sternes, 390 F.3d 1019, 1025–26 (7th Cir. 2004)(as to exhaustion of state remedies, a petitioner must “assert his federal claim through one complete round of state-court review, either on direct appeal of his conviction or in post-conviction proceedings . . . . 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.”). II. The dismissal of the action shall be without prejudice, and judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. III. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing ' 2254 Proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. ' 2253(c), the court finds that the petitioner has failed to show that reasonable jurists would find it “debatable whether [this court] was correct in its procedural ruling.@ Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The court therefore denies a certificate of appealability. IT IS SO ORDERED. 06/14/2013 Date: __________________ _______________________________ Distribution: William S. Fraunfelder #110651 New Castle Correctional Facility 1000 Van Nuys Rd. P.O. Box A New Castle, IN 47362 Electronically Registered Counsel Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

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?