Pica v. Ivory et al, No. 3:2010cv00258 - Document 13 (N.D. Ind. 2010)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 10 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Thomas Anthony Pica. Signed by Judge William C Lee on 12/20/2010. (kds)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION THOMAS ANTHONY PICA, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) JULIANNE IVORY and COMMISSIONER, ) INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION. ) ) Respondents. ) CAUSE NO. 3:10-CV-0258 WL OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Petitioner s motion to reconsider the dismissal of grounds five, six, and elements of ground two of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the court because they did not assert violation of the United States Constitution, laws or treaties, and therefore state no claim upon which relief can be granted. The Petitioner asks that this court move toward reinstating these three grounds as the issues as originally submitted are violations of United States law and Indiana law . . . (DE 10 at 2). Under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254(a), federal courts shall entertain an application for writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. Relief in this action is only available from violation of the federal Constitution or laws. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991). This court dismissed grounds two, five, and six of the Petitioner s petition for writ of habeas corpus because they involved only state law claims. The Petitioner attaches to his motion to reconsider an opinion an Indiana appellate court opinion which he suggests supports his argument that these claims deal with federal law issues. But the Indiana appellate court opinion he submits deals with a civil case, not a criminal prosecution. Moreover, nothing in that opinion deals with violation of federal law; the opinion deals solely with Article One, Section Twenty Two of the Indiana Constitution and Indiana statutes. Nothing in the Indiana Court of Appeals opinion the Petitioner attaches to his motion to reconsider supports his claim that grounds five, six, and elements of ground two of his petition for writ of habeas corpus state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the foregoing reasons, the Court now DENIES the Petitioner s motion to reconsider the dismissal of grounds five, six, and elements of ground two of his petition for writ of habeas corpus (DE 10). SO ORDERED DATED: December 20, 2010 s/William C. Lee William C. Lee, Judge United States District Court
]]>
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.
