Stanford v. Indiana State of, No. 3:2007cv00463 - Document 2 (N.D. Ind. 2007)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE and denying writ. Signed by Judge James T Moody on 10/4/07. (kds)

Download PDF
Stanford v. Indiana State of Doc. 2 case 3:07-cv-00463-JTM document 2 filed 10/04/2007 page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION TIMOTHES STANFORD, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO. 3:07-CV-463 JM OPINION AND ORDER Timothes Stanford, a pro se prisoner, initiated this case seeking a writ of mandamus ordering the St. Joseph Superior Court to rule on his post-conviction relief petition which has been pending since December 23, 1999 in cause number 71D08-9505CF-00218. This court does not have the jurisdiction to issue such a writ against a state court. See In re Campbell, 264 F.3d 730, 731 (7th Cir. 2001) ( [W]e cannot . . . use our power to control or interfere with state court litigation, thus exceeding our jurisdiction. ) This petition seeks a writ of mandamus, not a writ of habeas corpus. This petition cannot be converted into a writ of habeas corpus, if for no other reason, because it does not provide a complete basis for claiming habeas relief. Nevertheless, Stanford could file a separate habeas corpus petition in this court under a different cause number because, [i]nordinate, unjustifiable delay in a state-court collateral proceeding excuses the requirement of petitioners to exhaust their state-court remedies before seeking federal habeas corpus relief. Jackson v. Duckworth, 112 F.3d 878 (7th Cir. 1997). Dockets.Justia.com case 3:07-cv-00463-JTM document 2 filed 10/04/2007 page 2 of 2 Finally, if he would rather complete the state post-conviction relief process first, We note in closing, for Campbell s guidance (since he is unrepresented), that he can ask the [Indiana] Appellate Court[s] to issue under the authority of [Indiana] state law a writ of mandamus directing the state trial court . . .. Id at 732. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. ENTER: October 4, 2007 s/ James T. Moody JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY 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.