TAYLOR v. KRUEGER

Filing 5

Entry Dismissing Petition and Directing Entry of Final Judgment - Petitioner Ralph Taylor was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, money laundering, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and engaging in unlawful monetary transactions, in 1998 in this District. He brings this action seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A § 2241 petition by a federal prisoner is generally limited to challenges to the execution, not the validity, of the sentence. The petitioner' ;s motion to recognize previous judicial determinations, res judicata, 28 USC 1963, Dkt. No. 2 , is denied as frivolous. This action is dismissed with prejudice as meritless. Judgment consistent with this action shall now issue. (See Entry.) Copy to petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 1/16/2018. (RSF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
RALPH TAYLOR,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFREY E. KRUEGER Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:17-cv-00581-WTL-MJD

Entry Dismissing Petition and Directing Entry of Final Judgment
“Federal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears
legally insufficient on its face.” McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994); Rules 1(b) and 4
of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
Petitioner Ralph Taylor was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, money
laundering, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and engaging in unlawful monetary
transactions, in 1998 in this District. United States v. Taylor, 1:96-cr-0132-LJM-KPF-1. He was
sentenced to 30 years imprisonment, 10 years of supervised release, and a fine of $25,000. His
convictions were affirmed on direct appeal in United States v. Taylor, 196 F.3d 854 (7th Cir.
1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1081 (2000).
He brings this action seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A § 2241 petition by a
federal prisoner is generally limited to challenges to the execution, not the validity, of the
sentence. Valona v. United States, 138 F.3d 693, 694 (7th Cir. 1998). In his habeas petition, Mr.
Taylor contends that his custodian is violating his constitutional rights by periodically collecting
payments toward his fine which he alleges has already been paid in full. He alleges that “the
issue associated herewith has already been conclusively resolved with entry of the final judgment

on file with this Court as docket entry no. 1 in case no. 1:17-mc-0065-SEB-DML, i.e. res
judicata.” Dkt. No. 1, p. 3. He further alleges that “[t]he filing of this foreign judgment into this
Court makes it legally equivalent to a judgment rendered from this Court itself, and by its timing,
supersedes any previous judgment this Respondent is relying upon to impose the collection of
this satisfied fine.” Dkt. No. 1, p. 6. The judgment to which the petitioner refers was issued by
the United States District Court of Nevada in Bailey v. William Oscar Harris, et al., 2:15-cv02279-JAD-GWF (D. Nev. June 21, 2017) (“Nevada Judgment”).
Mr. Taylor alleges that the Nevada Judgment states “all of the outstanding Federal
obligations due to the United States, by Ralph Taylor…emanating from case no. 1:96-cr-0132LJM-KPF…have been satisfied and discharged of record.” Dkt. No. 1, p. 7. He requests that
this Court order his custodian to cease and desist the collection of money toward his fine.
The Court is cognizant of the fact that Mr. Taylor signed his habeas petition under
penalty of perjury. Mr. Taylor’s claim, however, is erroneous with regard to the content and the
legal effect of the Nevada Judgment. Contrary to his assertion that the Nevada Judgment refers to
Mr. Taylor’s criminal fine that was assessed in this District, the Nevada Judgment merely states
that “[t]his action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard
and a decision has been rendered.” 2:15-cv-2279-JAD-GWF. The Court takes judicial notice of
the Nevada decision and notes that the civil case filed by a Viana B. Bailey was dismissed
because “there does not appear to be an actual dispute between real parties. Id., Dkt. No. 23.
Nothing in that court’s decision discussed nor has any bearing on Mr. Taylor’s $25,000 criminal
fine. To allege that the Nevada Judgment, in fact, determines as a matter of law that his fine has
been paid is nothing short of preposterous.

The petitioner’s motion to recognize previous judicial determinations, res judicata, 28
USC 1963, Dkt. No. 2, is denied as frivolous.
This action is dismissed with prejudice as meritless. Judgment consistent with this action
shall now issue.

Date: 1/16/18

_______________________________
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
RALPH TAYLOR
#31628-048
TERRE HAUTE - FCI
TERRE HAUTE FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
Inmate Mail/Parcels
P.O. BOX 33
TERRE HAUTE, IN 47808