Opinion
Cause No. 1:06-CV-0086 TLS.
September 13, 2006
OPINION AND ORDER
Randolph Lamb submitted a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has also filed a motion for injunctive relief asking this court to direct the State of Indiana to release him from parole status until it decides his petition on the merits.
In his motion for injunctive relief, the petitioner asserts that Indiana statute I.C. 35-50-6-3, which provides that prisoners who have been released early because they earned credit time spend time on parole after their release, violates Articles one and eighteen of Indiana's Constitution. The Eleventh Amendment, however, precludes this court from entertaining this claim because a federal court lacks jurisdiction to require state officials to follow state law. "A federal court's grant of relief against state officials on the basis of state law, . . . does not vindicate the supreme authority of federal law. On the contrary, it is difficult to think of a greater intrusion on state sovereignty than when a federal court instructs state officials on how to conform their conduct to state law. Such a result conflicts directly with the principles of federalism that underlie the Eleventh Amendment." Pennhurst State School Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 106 (1984).
Under § 2254, this court may entertain a claim by a state prisoner that his confinement violates the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. But it may not entertain a claim, or issue injunctive relief on a claim, that a prisoner's confinement violates a state's constitution or law.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the petitioner's motion for injunctive relief (docket #2).
SO ORDERED.