DENNIS v. STATE OF INDIANA et al

Filing 3

ENTRY Directing Further Proceedings - Petitioner Michael J. Dennis is instructed to pay the $5.00 associated with this action or demonstrate that he is unable to pay the filing fee by filing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The petition in this action is rejected. However, this will not lead to the dismissal of Mr. Dennis' action. Instead, Mr. Dennis will be given an opportunity to file an amended petition that satisfies the habeas rules by setting forth a coherent claim. The Cou rt has attached a blank petition for relief from a conviction or sentence for the petitioner. Mr. Dennis shall have through September 11, 2017, to file an amended petition. The amended petition should contain the case number, 1:17-cv-2522-TWP-DML, an d be titled "amended petition for writ of habeas corpus." The clerk is instructed to update the docket to reflect that the parties in this action should be referred to as petitioner and respondent. Copy sent to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/9/2017. (MAT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
MICHAEL J. DENNIS,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
) Case No. 1:17-cv-2522-TWP-DML
)
STATE OF INDIANA, ERIC HOLCOMB,
)
JOE HOGSETT, INDIANAPOLIS CITY OF
)
MARION COUNTY CONSOLIDATED,
)
INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN CITY OF
)
INDIANAPOLIS/COUNTY OF MARION,
)
INDIANAPOLIS PUBLIC DEFENDER BOARD, )
)
Respondents.
)
Entry Directing Further Proceedings
I.
Petitioner Michael J. Dennis is instructed to pay the $5.00 associated with this action or
demonstrate that he is unable to pay the filing fee by filing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
II.
Mr. Dennis, has filed a document the Court understands to be a petition for writ of habeas
corpus because it appears that Mr. Dennis is requesting relief from a state court criminal sentence.
Unfortunately, the petition is otherwise incoherent. The habeas rules require fact pleading and the
habeas petitioner has to allege facts on which his claims may rest. A claim is a statement invoking
a legal position to a particular set of facts to which relief is sought. District courts should not have
to read and decipher tomes disguised as pleadings. Lindell v. Houser, 442 F.3d 1033, 1035 n.1 (7th
Cir. 2006). Mr. Dennis’ proposed petition contains awkward and confusing verbiage. This problem
is compounded by the fact that notice pleading does not suffice in an action for habeas corpus
relief. See Lloyd v. Van Natta, 296 F.3d 630, 633 (7th Cir. 2002).

For these reasons, the petition in this action is rejected. However, this will not lead to the
dismissal of Mr. Dennis’ action. Instead, Mr. Dennis will be given an opportunity to file an
amended petition that satisfies the habeas rules by setting forth a coherent claim. The Court has
attached a blank petition for relief from a conviction or sentence for the petitioner. Mr. Dennis
shall have through September 11, 2017, to file an amended petition. The amended petition should
contain the case number, 1:17-cv-2522-TWP-DML, and be titled “amended petition for writ of
habeas corpus.”
The clerk is instructed to update the docket to reflect that the parties in this action should
be referred to as petitioner and respondent.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 8/9/2017

Distribution:
MICHAEL J. DENNIS
927 Kiel Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46241