federal judge disregards federal law & frcp

Case 1:12-cv-01688-TWP-TAB Document 1 Filed 11/16/12 of 2 PageID #: 1

Case 1:12-cv-01688-TWP-TAB Document 1 Filed 11/16/12 of 2 PageID #: 2

Case 1:12-cv-01688-TWP-TAB Document 1-1 Filed 11/16/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION MENES ANKH EL, )

) Petitioner, )

vs. ) Case No.1:12-cv-1688-TWP-TAB )

) SHERIFF JOHN R. LAYTON, )

) Respondent. )

ORDER DENYING DEMAND FOR RESPONSE

I.

A copy of the Truth Affidavit in the Nature of a Demand for Response (Dkt. 8) filed on

May 3, 2013, shall be included with the petitioner’s copy of this Entry.

II.

This matter is before the Court on The petitioner, Menes Ankh El’s Affidavit in the

Nature of a Demand for Response. (the “Affidavit and Demand”). The Affidavit and Demand

makes reference to the pending action for habeas corpus relief. The habeas petition makes other

assertions, some of which are vague and most of which have been found by the courts in this

Circuit to be baseless. See United States of America v. Bolivar Benabe, et al., 654 F.3d 753, 767

(7th Cir. 2011)(7th Cir. 2011)(“We have repeatedly rejected their theories of individual

sovereignty, immunity from prosecution, and their ilk. Regardless of an individual’s claimed

status of descent, be it as a “sovereign citizen,” a “secured-party creditor,” or a “flesh-and-blood

human being,” that person is not beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. These theories should be

rejected summarily, however they are presented.”)(internal citations omitted).

Case 1:12-cv-01688-TWP-TAB Document 11 Filed 06/03/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 20

In his Affidavit and Demand, Petitioner directs the Court to honor a default judgment

against the Defendants. However, it is the court, not the parties, who is given the responsibility

for directing the proceedings in an action for habeas corpus relief. This is prescribed by 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)). Petitioner should not succumb to the “notion that the defendants [or this court], by

‘failing’ to respond to documents which he sent to them, somehow concede[ ] and ‘stipulate[ ]’

to his interpretation of the law and the rights and duties it recognizes.” Stanton v. Hutchins, 2010

WL 1418563 (W.D.Mich. Apr. 7, 2010). A ruling on the Application for writ of habeas corpus

is forthcoming.

The petitioner’s Affidavit and Demand [dkt. 8] is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: __________________ Distribution: Menes Ankh El Marion County Jail 40 S. Alabama St. Indianapolis, IN 46204

06/03/2013

________________________ Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana




) Petitioner, )



) Respondent. )

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

I.

A copy of the motion filed on June 6, 2013, shall be included with the petitioner’s copy

of this Entry.

II.

The petitioner’s motion for default judgment [Dkt 12] is denied because the respondent

has not yet been ordered to respond to the allegations in the petition for writ of habeas corpus

and therefore is not in default.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: __________________ Distribution: Menes Ankh El Marion County Jail 40 S. Alabama St. Indianapolis, IN 46204

06/12/2013





) Petitioner, )


GIL PETERS, Superintendent, ) )

Respondent. )

E N T R Y

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Menes Ankh El’s Demand to Transfer

Proceedings (Dkt. 16).

I.

As an initial matter, Petitioner has moved to amend the caption as he is longer in the

custody of Marion County Sheriff, John R. Layton. The habeas petitioner is now confined at the

Branchville Correctional Facility, an Indiana prison. The Superintendent of that prison, named in

his official capacity only, is substituted as the respondent, as shown in the caption of this Entry.

The petitioner’s suggestion that the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction be

designated as a co-respondent is not accepted as the superintendent of Branchville Correctional

is the proper respondent in this action.

II.

The petitioner seeks the recusal of the undersigned because he disagrees with one or more

rulings in this action and because the undersigned was formerly a judicial officer in a trial court

of this State. This request is denied for the reasons stated below.

Federal law provides that “[a]ny . . . judge . . . shall disqualify h[er]self in any proceeding

in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). “The standard in


any case for a ' 455(a) recusal is whether the judge's impartiality could be questioned by a

reasonable, well-informed observer.@ Id. In Hook v. McDade, 89 F.3d 350, 354 (7th Cir. 1996),

the court stated that ' 455(a) Aasks whether a reasonable person perceives a significant risk that

the judge will resolve the case on a basis other than the merits. This is an objective inquiry.@ The

purpose of the statute “is to preserve the appearance of impartiality.” United States v. Johnson,

680 F.3d 966, 979 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 672 (2012).

Judicial rulings, routine trial administration efforts, and ordinary admonishments are not

grounds for recusal. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994). In order to justify recusal

under § 455(a), the impartiality of which a judge is accused will almost always be extrajudicial.

Id. at 554; O'Regan v. Arbitration Forums, Inc., 246 F.3d 975, 988 (7th Cir. 2001); In re

Huntington Commons Assocs., 21 F.3d 157, 158-59 (7th Cir. 1994). Thus, “[w]hen a motion for

recusal fails to set forth an extrajudicial source for the alleged bias and no such source is

apparent, the motion should be denied.” Sprinpangler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 759 F. Supp.

1327, 1329 (S.D.Ind. 1991) (citing Jaffree v. Wallace, 837 F.2d 1461, 1465 (11th Cir. 1988)).

The petitioner’s dissatisfaction with prior rulings by the undersigned is not evidence of

bias, nor is it otherwise a valid basis for a change of judge. As to the second factor cited in the

motion for disqualification, the former service of the undersigned as a judicial officer in the State

of Indiana does not undercut my impartiality, which is both presumed, see United States v.

Baskes, 687 F.2d 165, 170 (7th Cir. 1981), and a reality. The court concludes that there is no

legitimate basis for the petitioner to seek the disqualification of the undersigned. The motion to

recuse thus fails under ' 455(a)(1) because the circumstances reviewed above do not

demonstrate an objectively reasonable basis for questioning my impartiality. In addition, no


circumstances associated with this action warrant the disqualification of the undersigned judge

under any provision of ' 455(b).

Based on the foregoing, therefore, the petitioner’s motion to transfer proceedings (Dkt.

16) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: __________

Distribution: Menes Ankh El DOC # 233632 BRANCHVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Inmate Mail/Parcels 21390 Old State Road 37 BRANCHVILLE, IN 47514

12/02/2013 ________________________ Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana




) Petitioner, )


) GIL PETERS, Superintendent, )

) Respondent. )

E N T R Y

I.

The petitioner’s motion to amend [Dkt 17] is granted.

The motion to amend shall be re-docketed as the amended petition for writ of habeas

corpus.

A copy of the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus shall be included with the

petitioner’s copy of this Entry.

II.

The petitioner’s second demand that the court immediately issue an order to show cause

[Dkt 15] is denied. The reason for this ruling is that the amended petition for writ of habeas

corpus has just been filed, at the petitioner’s request, and the court is obligated to conduct a

preliminary review of that pleading pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255

Proceedings in the United States District Courts. The petitioner will be notified when that step

has been taken.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: ______________

12/03/2013



Distribution: Menes Ankh El DOC # 233632 BRANCHVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Inmate Mail/Parcels 21390 Old State Road 37 BRANCHVILLE, IN 47514


UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse

Room 2722 - 219 S. Dearborn Street

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Office of the Clerk

Phone: (312) 435-5850

www.ca7.uscourts.gov

NOTICE OF DOCKETING - Short Form

December 17, 2013

To: Laura A. Briggs

District/Bankruptcy Clerk

The below captioned appeal has been docketed in the United States Court of Appeals for the

Seventh Circuit:

Appellate Case No: 13-3814

Caption:

IN RE:

MENES ANKH EL, formerly known as WENDELL BROWN,

Petitioner

District Court No: 1:12-cv-01688-TWP-TAB

Clerk/Agency Rep Laura Briggs

District Judge Tanya Pratt

If you have any questions regarding this appeal, please call this office.

form name: c7_Docket_Notice_short_form(form ID: 188)






Office of the Clerk

Phone: (312) 435-5850


ORIGINAL PROCEEDING CIRCUIT RULE 3(b) NOTICE

December 17, 2013

No.: 13-3814

IN RE:


Petitioner

Petition for Writ of Mandamus


Clerk/Agency Rep Laura A. Briggs

District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt

Circuit Rule 3(b) empowers the clerk to dismiss a petition if the docket fee is not paid within

fourteen (14) days of the docketing of the petition. This petition was docketed and the fee has

not been paid as of December 17, 2013. Depending on your situation, you should:

1.Pay the required $500.00 docketing fee to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals.

2.File a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis with the Court of Appeals.

An original and three (3) copies of that motion, with proof of service on your

opponent, is required. This motion must be supported by a affidavit in the form

of a sworn statement listing the assets and income of the petitioner(s). See Form 4

of the Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (as amended

12/01/2013).

If one of the above stated actions is not taken, the petition will be dismissed.

form name: c7_OP_Fee_Notice_Sent(form ID: 189)


1



) Petitioner, )



Respondent. )

Entry and Order to Show Cause

Petitioner Menes Ankh El’s has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The status of

this matter is as follows: The court continues to seek information sufficient to permit the review

required by Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings in the United States

District Courts. Additionally, a mandamus action filed by the petitioner appears to be pending

on his in forma pauperis request in the Court of Appeals. In an effort to advance these

proceedings, the court makes the following Entry.

I. Information Sought

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus on “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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).

A federal court may not grant an application for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a

person in state custody with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court

proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim: (1) “resulted in a decision that was contrary to,

or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the

Supreme Court of the United States”; or (2) “resulted in a decision that was based on an


2

unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court

proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

Petitioner Menes Ankh El shall have through March 13, 2014, in which to 1) identify

which of his habeas claims were addressed on the merits by the Indiana state courts, and 2)

explain whether and how the habeas claims addressed on the merits by the Indiana state courts

justify relief under § 2254(d)(1) or § 2254(d)(2), or both.

II. Show Cause Order

The petitioner=s custodian is directed to answer the allegations of the petitioner=s petition

for a writ of habeas corpus, and in doing so shall show cause why the relief sought by the

petitioner should not be granted insofar as the petitioner challenges the deprivation of a

recognized liberty interest affecting the fact or the duration of his confinement. This shall be

done within twenty (20) days after the date this Entry is signed. The petitioner shall have twenty

(20) days after service of such answer or return to order to show cause on him in which to reply.

A copy of this Entry and Order to Show Cause shall be sent to the Indiana Attorney

General through a Notice of Electronic Filing ("NEF") generated by the court's CM/ECF case

management system. The Indiana Attorney General has previously been provided with a copy of

the habeas petition itself.

SO ORDERED. Date:

02/19/2014



3

Distribution: [email protected] Menes Ankh El DOC # 233632 BRANCHVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Inmate Mail/Parcels 21390 Old State Road 37 BRANCHVILLE, IN 47514




Room 2722 ‐ 219 S. Dearborn Street


Office of the Clerk

Phone: (312) 435‐5850


ORDER

Submitted February 24, 2014

Decided February 26, 2014

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

No.: 13‐3814

IN RE:


Petitioner


District Court No: 1:12‐cv‐01688‐TWP‐TAB


The following are before the court:

1. TRUTH AFFIDAVIT IN THE NATURE OF A DEMAND TO TRANSFER

PROCEEDINGS, filed on December 17, 2013, by the pro se petitioner.

2. AFFIDAVIT ACCOMPANYING MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL

IN FORMA PAUPERIS, filed on December 30, 2014, by the pro se petitioner.

In light of the district court’s February 19, 2014, order directing the respondent to

answer petitioner’s habeas petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the mandamus petition is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that #2 is GRANTED.

form name: c7_Order_3J(form ID: 177)






Office of the Clerk

Phone: (312) 435-5850


NOTICE OF DOCKETING - Short Form

April 30, 2014

To: Laura A. Briggs

District/Bankruptcy Clerk

To: Tanya Walton Pratt

District Court Judge

The below captioned appeal has been docketed in the United States Court of Appeals for the

Seventh Circuit:

Appellate Case No: 14-1974

Caption:

IN RE:

WENDELL BROWN, now known as MENES ANKH EL,

Petitioner


Clerk/Agency Rep Laura Briggs

District Judge Tanya Pratt

If you have any questions regarding this appeal, please call this office.

CC:

form name: c7_Docket_Notice_short_form(form ID: 188)






Office of the Clerk

Phone: (312) 435-5850


ORIGINAL PROCEEDING CIRCUIT RULE 3(b) NOTICE

April 30, 2014

No.: 14-1974

IN RE:


Petitioner



Clerk/Agency Rep Laura A. Briggs


Circuit Rule 3(b) empowers the clerk to dismiss a petition if the docket fee is not paid within

fourteen (14) days of the docketing of the petition. This petition was docketed and the fee has

not been paid as of April 30, 2014. Depending on your situation, you should:

1.Pay the required $500.00 docketing fee to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals.

2.File a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis with the Court of Appeals.

An original and three (3) copies of that motion, with proof of service on your

opponent, is required. This motion must be supported by a affidavit in the form

of a sworn statement listing the assets and income of the petitioner(s). See Form 4

of the Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (as amended

12/01/2013).

If one of the above stated actions is not taken, the petition will be dismissed.

form name: c7_OP_Fee_Notice_Sent(form ID: 189)




) Petitioner, )



Respondent. ) Entry and Second Order to Show Cause

I.

The petitioner again seeks an entry of default. As to that point, the court agrees with the

following:

Default judgments are not appropriate in habeas corpus cases. A habeas petitioner is not entitled to release because of the state's tardiness in responding to the petition. See Broussard v. Lippman, 643 F.2d 1131 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 920, 101 S. Ct. 3059, 69 L.Ed.2d 425 (1981); United States ex rel. Mattox v. Scott, 507 F.2d 919 (7th Cir. 1974). To hold otherwise would improperly place the burden of default upon the community at large. Mattox, 507 F.2d at 919.

Queen v. Outlaw, 2007 WL 2900493 (E.D.Tex. Sept. 28, 2007). Based on the foregoing, the

petitioner’s request for the issuance of a default judgment [dkt 27] is denied.

II.

The petitioner=s custodian is again directed to answer the allegations of the petitioner=s

petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and in doing so shall show cause why the relief sought by


the petitioner should not be granted insofar as the petitioner challenges the deprivation of a








IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: Distribution: [email protected] Menes Ankh El DOC # 233632 BRANCHVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Inmate Mail/Parcels 21390 Old State Road 37 BRANCHVILLE, IN 47514

05/20/2014







Office of the Clerk

Phone: (312) 435-5850


ORDER

Submitted May 16, 2014

Decided May 22, 2014

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No.: 14-1974

IN RE:


Petitioner





1. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, filed on April 30, 2014, by the

pro se petitioner.

2. TRUTH AFFIDAVIT IN THE NATURE OF A DEMAND FOR FILING

FEES TO BE WAIVED, filed on April 30, 2014, by the pro se petitioner.

In light of the district court's order dated May 20, 2014, ordering respondent to file an

answer within 20 days and denying petitioner's requests for default judgment, the

petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.

The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.





) Petitioner, )



Respondent. ) Entry and Second Order to Show Cause

I.

The petitioner again seeks an entry of default. As to that point, the court agrees with the

following:

Default judgments are not appropriate in habeas corpus cases. A habeas petitioner is not entitled to release because of the state's tardiness in responding to the petition. See Broussard v. Lippman, 643 F.2d 1131 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 920, 101 S. Ct. 3059, 69 L.Ed.2d 425 (1981); United States ex rel. Mattox v. Scott, 507 F.2d 919 (7th Cir. 1974). To hold otherwise would improperly place the burden of default upon the community at large. Mattox, 507 F.2d at 919.

Queen v. Outlaw, 2007 WL 2900493 (E.D.Tex. Sept. 28, 2007). Based on the foregoing, the

petitioner’s request for the issuance of a default judgment [dkt 27] is denied.

II.













05/20/2014







Office of the Clerk

Phone: (312) 435-5850


ORDER

Submitted May 16, 2014

Decided May 22, 2014

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No.: 14-1974

IN RE:


Petitioner





1. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, filed on April 30, 2014, by the

pro se petitioner.

2. TRUTH AFFIDAVIT IN THE NATURE OF A DEMAND FOR FILING

FEES TO BE WAIVED, filed on April 30, 2014, by the pro se petitioner.

In light of the district court's order dated May 20, 2014, ordering respondent to file an

answer within 20 days and denying petitioner's requests for default judgment, the

petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.

The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.





) Petitioner, )



Respondent. )

Entry Directing Further Proceedings

The petitioner, a state prisoner, seeks habeas corpus relief with respect to his conviction

entered in Marion County, Indiana. The respondent has been ordered to show cause why the

relief sought by the petitioner should not be granted. Although that step has been taken, another

inquiry is warranted.

I.

“Ensuring the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction is the court's first duty in every

lawsuit.” Winters v. Fru–Con, Inc., 498 F.3d 734, 740 (7th Cir. 2007). “Accordingly, not only

may the federal courts police subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, they must.” Wernsing v.

Thompson, 423 F.3d 732, 743 (7th Cir. 2005).

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Newell Operating Co., v. Int'l Union of

United Auto., Aero., & Agric., Implement Workers of Am., 532 F.3d 583, 587 (7th Cir. 2008).

The federal courts may only exercise jurisdiction over cases when that jurisdiction is

“specifically authorized by federal statute.” Id.


II.

This habeas action is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). “A 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). The scope of federal habeas review is limited. Wilson v.

Corcoran, 131 S. Ct. 13, 16 (2010)(“[I]t is only noncompliance with federal law that renders a

State’s criminal judgment susceptible to collateral attack in the federal courts. The habeas statute

unambiguously provides that a federal court may issue the writ to a state prisoner ‘only on the

ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United

States.’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). And we have repeatedly held that federal habeas corpus relief does

not lie for errors of state law. It is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-

court determinations on state-law questions.”) (some internal citations and quotations omitted).

III.

One basis for the habeas petition, and perhaps the only basis, is the claim that the state

court lacked jurisdiction over the petitioner. A claim of this nature has consistently been found

insufficient to support the exercise of habeas corpus jurisdiction. See, e.g., Wills v. Egeler, 532

F.2d 1058, 1059 (6th Cir. 1976)(“Determination of whether a particular state court has

jurisdiction under state law is a function of the state courts, not the federal judiciary.”); Smith v.

Burt, No. 08–CV–14239, 2008 WL 4791348, *2 (E.D.Mich. Oct. 24, 2008) (dismissing habeas

petition where prisoner claimed that the state court lacked jurisdiction and the trial judge and

attorneys lacked proper authority and licensing).


IV.

Based on the foregoing, the petitioner shall have through June 10, 2014, in which to (1)

show cause why any claim in his petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the Indiana trial

court’s jurisdiction over him should not be summarily dismissed and (2) identify what further

claim, if any, is asserted in this action.

V.

The Clerk of Court is directed to update the docket to reflect the petitioner’s correct

address and DOC number as noted in his filing at dkt. 16 and in the distribution list of this entry.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: __________________ Distribution: [email protected] Menes Ankh El DOC # 233632 BRANCHVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Inmate Mail/Parcels 21390 Old State Road 37 BRANCHVILLE, IN 47514

05/28/2014





) Petitioner, )



Respondent. ) Entry and Third Order to Show Cause

I.

The cause of action code for this action shall be changed to 28:2254(a). This will

facilitate notice of the action and of this Order to Show Cause reaching the Indiana Attorney

General.

II.













06/09/2014





) Petitioner, )



Respondent. )

Entry and Notice

The petitioner shall have through July 10, 2014 in which to comply with directions issued

on May 29, 2014. If he fails to do so the court may infer that he has abandoned the action, which

could then be dismissed for failure to prosecute without further notice to the parties.


06/16/2014



1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

MENES ANKH EL, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) No. 1:12-cv-01688-TWP-TAB

)

GIL PETERS, )

)

)

Respondent. )

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

GREGORY F. ZOELLER, Attorney General of Indiana, by Henry A. Flores, Jr.,

Deputy Attorney General, hereby enters his appearance for the Respondent in the above-

referenced matter.

Respectfully submitted,

GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Attorney General of Indiana

s/ Henry A. Flores, Jr.

Henry A. Flores, Jr.

Deputy Attorney General

Atty. No. 27837-22


2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing document has been duly served upon the

individual listed below, by United States Postal Service, on the 25th

day of June, 2014.

MENES ANKH EL DOC #233632

BRANCHVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Inmate Mail/Parcels

21390 Old State Road 37

BRANCHVILLE, IN 47514




OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Indiana Government Center South, Fifth Floor

302 West Washington Street

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

317-233-1665(voice)

317-232-7979 (facsimile)

[email protected]




MENES ANKH EL f/k/a WENDELL, )

BROWN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) No. 1:12-cv-01688-TWP-TAB

)

SUPERINTENDENT, BRANCHVILLE )

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, )

)

Respondent. )

FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE RETURN TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Respondent respectfully requests that this Court grant him an extension of time of

25 days, up to and including July 25, 2014, within which to file his Return to the Order to

Show Cause.

1. It appears Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus directed at his

confinement for three separate state criminal cases in Marion County, Indiana.

2. This court directed Respondent to show cause by June 30, 2014, why

relief should not be granted. The deadline to respond has not yet passed.

3. Respondent is currently investigating whether Petitioner’s claims are

properly exhausted and to the extent there is any appellate record, Respondent has yet to

receive that record record and is therefore unable to adequately respond to the issues

raised by Petitioner. As such, he is unable to file a response by June 30, 2014, and now

seeks an extension of time in which to file the Return to Order to Show Cause.


2

4. This is Respondent’s counsel’s first request for an extension of time in this

case. Respondent’s counsel requests an additional 25 days, up to and including July 25,

2014, within which to file his response.

WHEREFORE, Respondent requests that this Court grant him an extension of

time of an additional 25 days within which to file a Return to the Order to Show Cause.

Respectfully submitted,

GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Attorney General of Indiana




Attorneys for Respondent

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I have electronically filed the foregoing document. I hereby certify that on

July 1, 2014, I have served the foregoing document on the individual listed below through U.S.

Mail, first-class postage pre-paid:

Menes Ankh El

DOC # 233632


Inmate Mail/Parcels






OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Indiana Government Center South, Fifth Floor

302 West Washington Street

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

317-233-1665 (voice)

317-232-7979 (facsimile)

[email protected]




MENES ANKH EL f/k/a WENDELL, )

BROWN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) No. 1:12-cv-01688-TWP-TAB

)

SUPERINTENDENT, BRANCHVILLE )

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, )

)

Respondent. )

ENTRY GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Respondent has filed a motion for extension of time requesting an additional 25

days within which to file a return to the order to show cause and respond to Petitioner’s

petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

The Court GRANTS the motion and gives Respondent up to and including July

25, 2014 within which to file a response to the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Date: ___________ ______________________________

Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge

United States District Court

Southern District of Indiana

Copies to:

Menes Ankh El

DOC # 233632


Inmate Mail/Parcels



Electronically Registered Counsel




) Petitioner, )


CHRIS MORRISON, Director, ) Duvall Residential Center, )

) Respondent. )

Entry Discussing Selected Matters

I.

A copy of the docket sheet and a copy of the Entry and Notice issued on June 16, 2014

shall be included with the petitioner’s copy of this Entry.

II.

The petitioner’s current address has been noted on the docket.

The petitioner’s current custodian is substituted as the respondent.

III.

The respondent’s motion for enlargement of time [dkt 38] is granted to the extent that the

respondent shall have through August 27, 2014 in which to show cause why the relief sought by

the petitioner should not be granted.


IV.

The petitioner shall have through August 5, 2014 in which to comply with directions

issued on May 29, 2014. If he fails to do so the court may infer that he has abandoned the action,

which could then be dismissed for failure to prosecute without further notice to the parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: Distribution: Menes Ankh El DOC # 233632 DUVALL RESIDENTIAL CENTER 1848 LUDLOW AVENUE INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46201 Electronically Registered Counsel

07/07/2014



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA MENES ANKH EL, )

) Petitioner, )

vs. ) No. 1:12-cv-1688-TWP-TAB )


) Respondent. )

Entry Discussing Selected Matters

I.

Menes Ankh El is confined at the Marion County Jail I and seeks a writ of habeas corpus. The sole proper respondent in such an action is his custodian, Sheriff Layton. The inclusion of any co-respondent is improper and unnecessary. Warden Conway is stricken as a co-respondent.

II.

The petitioner’s request to proceed proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 4] is denied because the filing fee for this action was paid with the filing of the habeas petition itself. IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: _______________ Distribution:

Menes Ankh El, #409402 Marion County Jail II 40 S. Alabama St. Indianapolis, IN 46204

04/10/2013





) Petitioner, )



) Respondent. )

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

I.

A copy of the motion filed on April 18, 2013, shall be included with the petitioner’s copy

of this Entry.

II.

The petitioner’s motion for default judgment [Dkt. 6] is denied because the respondent

has not been ordered to respond to the allegations in the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: __________________ Distribution: Menes Ankh El, #409402 Marion County Jail 40 S. Alabama St. Indianapolis, IN 46204

04/24/2013



federal judge disregards federal law & frcp

Documents