NEAL v. OLIVER

Filing 24

ENTRY - granting 18 Motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law. (See Etnry.) 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-194-JMS-WGH

ENTRY
The petitioner’s motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law [18]
pertaining to the Entry of September 24, 2012, is granted, consistent with the
following:
1.
The court finds as facts that: 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. 2131168. The
respondent has appeared by counsel and has been ordered to show cause why the
relief Neal seeks should not be granted. On September 18, 2012, Neal filed a claim
for stay of proceedings. That claim was denied on September 24, 2012.
2.
The court finds the pertinent legal principles associated with ruling on
the claim for stay of proceedings to be the following: 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 proceeding 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).

3.
The court reached and reaches the following conclusions with respect
to the denial of the claim for stay of proceedings: The parties cannot confer or alter
habeas corpus jurisdiction based on their private agreement. 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, 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.
4.
The claim for stay of proceedings was properly denied and this action
will continue to be governed by the orders heretofore issued.
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
Electronically Registered Counsel

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