FRENCH v. SUPERINTENDENT

Filing 15

ENTRY Again Directing Further Proceedings - The Court must make the correct decision and the Respondent is obligated to make consistent and sensible arguments. Accordingly, Respondent has until August 1, 2016 to respond and Petitioner may have until August 15, 2016 within which to reply. **See Order** Copy to Petitioner via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 7/13/2016.(JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
MICHAEL FRENCH,
Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT, New Castle
Correctional Facility,
Respondent.

)
)
)
) Case No. 1:16-cv-0275-TWP-TAB
)
)
)
)
)

Entry Again Directing Further Proceedings
Petitioner Michael French is an Indiana inmate who seeks a writ of habeas corpus. His
claim is that the Indiana Department of Correction did not properly calculate his credit time.
Specifically, French contends that he was deprived of all of his educational credit time when his
parole was revoked and he was returned to prison. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss, asserting
that French failed to exhaust all available remedies in the Indiana State courts. In its Entry of June
20, 2016 [Dkt. 12], the Court reviewed the Respondent’s argument and concluded that it was
“appropriate that the respondent specify precisely what state court remedy French still has
available” (emphasis in original).
The Respondent’s filing of July 8, 2016 [ Dkt. 14] fails to adequately address the Court’s
concerns. The four arguments which are readily discernible from that filing are that (1) the
petitioner has failed to exhaust available remedies in the Indiana state courts, (2) the petitioner
committed procedural default by not appeal a decision of the Fayette Circuit Court, (3) the
petitioner’s habeas claim is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and (4) the petitioner’s claim,
even if cognizable, lacks merit. The Court finds nothing problematic in the last three arguments,
but combining the first and the second arguments perpetuate the concerns expressed in the Entry

of June 20, 2016. The reason is self-evident: if the petitioner has a meaningful remedy remaining
in the state courts, a dismissal without prejudice may be proper, whereas if the petitioner has
committed unexcused procedural default a dismissal with prejudice may be proper.
The Court must make the correct decision and the Respondent is obligated to make
consistent and sensible arguments. Accordingly, Respondent has until August 1, 2016 to respond
and Petitioner may have until August 15, 2016 within which to reply.

SO ORDERED.
Date: 07/13/16

Distribution:
MICHAEL FRENCH
961291
NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
1000 Van Nuys Road
NEW CASTLE, IN 47362
Electronically Registered Counsel