Maxwell v. Sherriff St Joseph County Jail, No. 3:2006cv00763 - Document 4 (N.D. Ind. 2006)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER dismissing petition pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 11/20/06. (kds)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Maxwell v. Sherriff St Joseph County Jail Doc. 4 case 3:06-cv-00763-RL document 4 filed 11/20/2006 page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION VALDEZ N. MAXWELL, Petitioner, vs. SHERIFF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY JAIL, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NO. 3:06-CV-763 OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Valdez N. Maxwell, a pro se prisoner. For the reasons set forth below, the habeas corpus petition is DISMISSED pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4. DISCUSSION Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4 provides as follows: If it plainly appears from the petition and attached exhibits that the petitioner is entitled to relief in the district court, judge must dismiss the petition and direct clerk to notify the petitioner. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 4. Maxwell is challenging conviction in the St. Joseph County Circuit Court. any not the the his criminal However, Maxwell has not appealed his conviction to the Indiana Court of Appeals or the Indiana Supreme Court. Section 2254 provides in pertinent part that: An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted Dockets.Justia.com case 3:06-cv-00763-RL document 4 filed 11/20/2006 page 2 of 2 unless it appears that-(A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State; or (B) (i) there is an absence of available State corrective process; or (ii) circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). Further, the whole of the state process is larger than just the state trial court: The [Indiana] Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction over . . . [s]upervision of the exercise of jurisdiction by other courts of the State of Indiana, including the issuance of writs of mandate and prohibition . . . . Ind. R. App. P. 4(B). In this case, Maxwell is plainly not entitled to relief on this federal habeas corpus petition because he has not yet obtained a ruling on the merits of his claims and afforded both the Indiana Court of Appeals and the Indiana Supreme Court the opportunity to review that ruling. Until he has exhausted his state court remedies, these claims may not be raised here. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the habeas corpus petition is DISMISSED pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4. DATED: November 20, 2006 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge United States District Court -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
