WILSON v. MARION COUNTY SHERIFF

Filing 4

ENTRY and ORDER Dismissing Action; The request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted 2 . 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 Wi lson has failed to show that reasonable jurists would find it "debatable whether [this court] was correct in its procedural ruling[s]. The court therefore denies a certificate of appealability. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/14/2014. Copy Mailed. (CKM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
JAMES WILSON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
vs.
MARION COUNTY SHERIFF,
Respondent.

No. 1:14-1095-TWP-DML

Entry and Order Dismissing Action
I.
The request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted [2] .
ABefore seeking a federal writ of habeas corpus, a state prisoner must exhaust available
state remedies.@ Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004)(citing 28 U.S.C. '2254(b)(1)). “An
applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State
. . . if he has the right under the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question
presented.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The exhaustion requirement is that a state prisoner, before
filing a habeas petition, has presented the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to
rule on the merits of each claim he seeks to raise in this case. 28 U.S.C. ' 2254(b), (c). See
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) ("[S]tate prisoners must give the state courts
one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues.").
In this case, the procedural inquiry is conclusive as to the proper outcome. The habeas
petition shows on its face that the prosecution of petitioner Wilson in the Indiana state courts is
not complete. This shows that his present habeas filing is premature. The action must therefore
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 Wilson has failed to
show that reasonable jurists would find it “debatable whether [this court] was correct in its
procedural ruling[s].” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The court therefore denies a
certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
07/14/2014
Date: _________________

Distribution:
JAMES WILSON
438847
MARION COUNTY JAIL
Inmate Mail/Parcels
40 South Alabama Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204

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