Adams v. Martin

Full title: CHARLES W. ADAMS, JR., Petitioner, v. WILLIAM MARTIN, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division

Date published: Nov 28, 2006

CAUSE NO. 3:06-CV-711 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 28, 2006)

Opinion

CAUSE NO. 3:06-CV-711.

November 28, 2006

OPINION AND ORDER

RUDY LOZANO, District Judge

This matter is before the Court on the: (1) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by pro se prisoner, Charles W. Adams, Jr., on October 13, 2006; (2) Motion to Transfer Case, filed by Charles W. Adams, Jr., on November 15, 2006; (3) Motion for Declaratory Judgment, filed by Charles W. Adams, Jr. on November 15, 2006; and (4) Motion for Injunction, filed by Charles W. Adams, Jr. on November 15, 2006. For the reasons set forth below, the habeas corpus petition is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with leave to file an amended petition under this cause number on or before December 22, 2006. The motion to transfer venue is DENIED. The Motion for Declaratory Judgment and the Motion for Injunction are DENIED AS MOOT. DISCUSSION

In his petition Adams challenges his criminal conviction in the Kosciusko County Superior Court and the Indiana Department of Correction's calculation of his credit time earned. These are two separate and distinct issues. Only one finding can be challenged in each habeas corpus petition. Therefore, the current petition must be denied without prejudice with leave to file an amended petition under this cause number addressing only one of these issues. Adams is cautioned that if he does not file an amended petition by that date, this case will be dismissed. Adams may of course file challenges to his other issue in a separate habeas corpus petition. In light of this finding, the motions for declaratory judgment and injunction are denied as moot.

Finally, Adams has filed a motion to transfer venue. Adams properly filed his petition in this Court. Adams states that he will be released from custody and living in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Although Adams' location has changed since his filing, his case is still properly before this Court. As a result, Adams' motion for a change of venue is denied.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the habeas corpus petition is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with leave to file an amended petition under this cause number on or before December 22, 2006. The motion to transfer is DENIED. The motions for declaratory judgment and injunction are DENIED AS MOOT.