FRAUNFELDER v. SUPERINTENDENT NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

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)

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