NEAL v. OLIVER

Filing 14

ENTRY and NOTICE - The measures sought and the authorities cited in Neal's claim for judicial review have no connection with the proper adjudication of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus and the relief sought in the claim for judicial review is denied. (See Entry.) Copy to petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/13/2012.(RSF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

ROBERT DAVID NEAL,
vs.

Petitioner,

JOHN C. OLIVER,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-193-JMS-WGH

Entry and Notice
This is an action in which Robert David Neal, who is confined in a federal
prison in this District, seeks a writ of habeas corpus. His challenge is to the validity
of a prison disciplinary proceeding identified as No. 669681.
The respondent has appeared by counsel and has been ordered to show cause
why the relief Neal seeks should not be granted. In addition, on November 6, 2012,
Neal filed a claim for judicial review pursuant to procedures he has specified
(hereafter “claim for judicial review”). It is the claim for judicial review which is
considered in this Entry and Notice.
As noted, this is an action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). AA
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.@ Rose vs. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19,
21 (1975). Additionally, the court is to proceed in the manner prescribed in 28 U.S.C.
§ 2243, which requires the court “to dispose of the matter as law and justice
require.” See Porter v. McCollum, 130 S. Ct. 447, 452 (2009)(citing Rompilla v.
Beard, 545 U.S. 374, 390 (2005)); Canaan v. McBride, 395 F.3d 376, 383 (7th Cir.
2005).

Consistent with the foregoing, the court reaches the conclusions that (1) the
parties cannot confer or alter habeas corpus jurisdiction based on their private
agreement, (2) the law of Indiana does not supply either a basis for seeking relief
pursuant to § 2241(c)(3) or procedures for adjudicating the habeas petition, and (3)
federal statutes other than § 2241(c)(3) do not supply either a basis for seeking
relief pursuant to § 2241(c)(3) or procedures for adjudicating the habeas petition.
Based on the foregoing, the measures sought and the authorities cited in
Neal’s claim for judicial review have no connection with the proper adjudication of
his petition for a writ of habeas corpus and the relief sought in the claim for judicial
review is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11/13/2012
Date: _________________
_______________________________

Distribution:
Robert David Neal
#15151-180
Terre Haute USP
P.O. Box 33
Terre Haute, IN 47808

Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana