REED v. WARDEN

Filing 19

ENTRY Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - Because Reed is not entitled to the relief he seeks at this time and in this forum, the action is dismissed. The dismissal shall be without prejudice. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 3/5/2014.(TRG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
JOSEPH D. REED,
Petitioner,
vs.
STANLEY KNIGHT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:13-cv-1282-TWP-MJD

Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
The action is poised for review pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases in the United States District Courts. Rule 4 provides that upon preliminary consideration
by the district court judge, "[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits
annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge shall make
an order for its summary dismissal and cause the petitioner to be notified." See Small v. Endicott,
998 F.2d 411, 414 (7th Cir. 1993).
Petitioner Reed has now supplemented his petition for a writ of habeas corpus as
directed. He has done so by submitting a copy of the chronological case summary for the
criminal action which resulted in his probation being revoked. The criminal action identified in
the habeas petition was entered in the Marion Superior Court in No. 49G20-9607-CF-104445.
The chronological case summary shows that his probation was revoked on September 12, 2013,
after an evidentiary hearing at which Reed was present and was represented by counsel. In
Reed’s supplement, he explained that he is currently appealing that determination within the
Indiana court system.

A habeas petitioner such as Reed must give the state court a meaningful opportunity to
consider the substance of the claims later presented in federal court. Id. Stated otherwise, "[a]
state prisoner . . . may obtain federal habeas review of his claim only if he has exhausted his state
remedies and avoided procedurally defaulting his claim." Thomas v. McCaughtry, 201 F.3d 995,
999 (7th Cir. 2000). It was noted by the Supreme Court that:
Before seeking a federal writ of habeas corpus, a state prisoner must exhaust available
state remedies, 28 U. S. C. §2254(b)(1), thereby giving the State the "'opportunity to pass
upon and correct' alleged violations of its prisoners' federal rights." Duncan v. Henry, 513
U. S. 364, 365 (1995) (per curiam) (quoting Picard v. Connor, 404 U. S. 270, 275 (1971)
(citation omitted)). To provide the State with the necessary “opportunity,” the prisoner
must “fairly present” his claim in each appropriate state court (including a state supreme
court with powers of discretionary review), thereby alerting that court to the federal
nature of the claim. Duncan, supra, at 365-366; O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U. S. 838,
845 (1999).
Baldwin v. Reese, 124 S. Ct. 1347, 1349 (2004).
Reed’s pending appeal from the revocation determination constitutes an available state
court remedy, and Reed has not identified any circumstances from which it could be concluded
that exhaustion of state court remedies should be excused.
The only manner in which this purpose can be recognized is to dismiss Reed’s petition in
this court and permit him to proceed, if he elects to do so, in the Indiana state courts.
Because Reed is not entitled to the relief he seeks at this time and in this forum, the
action is dismissed. The dismissal shall be without prejudice. Judgment consistent with this
Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

03/05/2014
Date: __________________

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Joseph D. Reed
No. 984710
Putnamville Correctional Facility
Inmate Mail/Parcels
1946 West U.S. Hwy 40
Greencastle, IN 46135