HENDERSON v. HANKS

Filing 21

Entry and Order Dismissing Action: The motion/demand for damages and for his release [Dkt 19] is therefore denied. The habeas petition thus shows on its face that Henderson is not entitled to the relief he seeks and will be dismissed without prejudice. The court therefore denies a certificate of appealability ***SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 6/14/2013. Copy sent to Shawn Hernderson via US Mail. (DW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
SHAWN HENDERSON,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT HANKS,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:13-cv-00291-WTL-DML

Entry and Order Dismissing Action
I.
State inmate Shawn Henderson was given a final period of time, through June 4, 2013, in
which to comply with the directions of paragraph 4 of the Entry issued on March 19, 2013. Those
directions were that Henderson “explain how his claim of sovereignty states a cognizable claim for
habeas corpus relief” and that he “state whether and in what fashion he presented this claim to the
Indiana state courts.”
Henderson has filed a motion/demand for damages and for his release. He cannot obtain
damages in an action for habeas corpus relief and he has not even plausible established his right to
be released. The motion/demand for damages and for his release [Dkt 19] is therefore denied.
As to the habeas petition itself, Henderson has not shown that he has presented his habeas
claims to the Indiana state courts or how the habeas claims would entitle him to relief. Rose vs.
Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975)(“A necessary predicate for the granting of federal habeas relief [to
a petitioner] is a determination by the federal court that [his or her] custody violates the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”). He has also not shown that his habeas claim
has been fairly and properly presented to the Indiana state courts. Lewis v. Sternes, 390 F.3d 1019,

1025-26 (7th Cir. 2004)(“Inherent in the habeas petitioner’s obligation to exhaust his state court
remedies before seeking relief in habeas corpus, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A), is the duty to
fairly present his federal claims to the state courts. . . . Fair presentment in turn requires the
petitioner to assert his federal claim through one complete round of state-court review, either on
direct appeal of his conviction or in post-conviction proceedings.”)(internal citations and quotation
marks omitted). The habeas petition thus shows on its face that Henderson is not entitled to the
relief he seeks and will be dismissed without prejudice.
II.
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 Henderson has failed to show
that reasonable jurists would find it Adebatable 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: ________________

Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Shawn Henderson, DOC #935411, Pendleton Correctional Facility, P.O. Box 30, Pendleton, IN
46064