Opinion
CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-114 PS
02-27-2013
LONNIE SEWELL, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
Lonnie Sewell, a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition attempting to challenge his parole revocation on August 9, 2011. (Sewell states in his petition that the hearing occurred on September 9, 2011, but he also attached the a copy of the hearing report which shows that it was held on August 9, 2011.) Though he used a form designed for challenging a prison disciplinary hearing, it is nevertheless clear that he has not presented any of his claims to the state courts.
However, before I can consider his claims, he must first present them to the state courts. "This means that the petitioner must raise the issue at each and every level in the state court system, including levels at which review is discretionary rather than mandatory." Lewis v. Sternes, 390 F.3d 1019, 1025-1026 (7th Cir. 2004). There are two possible methods for challenging a parole revocation in Indiana: by filing a post-conviction relief petition, Receveur v. Buss, 919 N.E.2d 1235 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), or by filing a state habeas corpus petition if the inmate is seeking immediate release. Lawson v. State, 845 N.E.2d 185, 186 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). Furthermore, if a state habeas corpus petition is improperly filed, it will be converted to a post- conviction petition. Hardley v. State, 893 N.E.2d 740, 743 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008); Ward v. Ind. Parole Bd., 805 N.E.2d 893 (2004).
Here, Sewell has not filed either of those petitions in state court. Therefore he has not exhausted his State court remedies and this federal habeas corpus petition must be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Section 2254 Habeas Corpus Rule 4.
SO ORDERED.
_______________
PHILIP P. SIMON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT