SNIDER v. SUPERINTENDENT, WVCF, No. 2:2011cv00168 - Document 20 (S.D. Ind. 2012)

Court Description: ENTRY Dismissing Insufficient Claim and Directing Further Proceedings. Snider's first habeas claim is dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings in the United States District Court. No partial final judgment sh all issue at this time as to the claim dismissed above. Respondent shall have through March 9, 2012, to brief the merits of the claims raised in Snider's petition for writ of habeas corpus. Snider shall have through March 30, 2012, to file his response to respondent's brief. (copy to petitioner via U.S. Mail). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/25/2012.(MAC)

Download PDF
SNIDER v. SUPERINTENDENT, WVCF Doc. 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA BILL R. SNIDER, ) ) Petitioner, ) v. ) ) SUPERINTENDENT, Wabash Valley ) Correctional Facility, ) ) Respondent. ) No. 2:11-cv-168-JMS-WGH Entry (1) Dismissing Insufficient Claim and (2) Directing Further Proceedings I. Petitioner Snider’s first claim is that asserted unreasonable delay in the state courts’ post-conviction process has violated his federally secured rights. Although of significant institutional concern, such circumstances do not support a cognizable claim for federal habeas relief. Montgomery v. Meloy, 90 F.3d 1200, 1206 (7th Cir.) (“[u]nless state collateral review violates some independent constitutional right, such as the Equal Protection Clause, . . . errors in state collateral review cannot form the basis for federal habeas corpus relief"), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 907 (1996); Williams v. State, 640 F.2d 140, 143-44 (8th Cir.) (“Infirmities in the state's postconviction remedy procedure cannot serve as a basis for setting aside a valid original conviction. . . . Errors or defects in the state post-conviction proceeding do not, ipso facto, render a prisoner's detention unlawful or raise constitutional questions cognizable in habeas corpus proceedings."), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 990 (1981). Accordingly, Snider’s first habeas claim is dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings in the United States District Court. No partial final judgment shall issue at this time as to the claim dismissed above. II. This is an appropriate case in which to determine whether Snider’s unexhausted claims would present a viable basis for federal habeas relief. To do that requires that Snider’s claims be briefed on the merits. See 28 U.S.C. § Dockets.Justia.com 2254(b)(2); see, e.g., Bell v. Cone, 543 U.S. 447, 451, n. 3 (2005) (declining to address whether the court of appeals correctly held that the petitioner had not defaulted on his claim and citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2) for the proposition that “an application for habeas corpus may be denied on the merits, notwithstanding a petitioner's failure to exhaust in state court”); Lambrix v. Singletary, 520 U.S. 518, 525 (1997) (noting that a federal court may deny a petition on the merits without resolving whether the issue was presented fairly to the state courts). Accordingly, respondent shall have through March 9, 2012, to brief the merits of the claims raised in Snider’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. Snider shall have through March 30, 2012, to file his response to respondent’s brief. IT IS SO ORDERED. 01/25/2012 Date: __________________ Distribution: Bill Snider #138872 Wabash Valley Correctional Facility 6908 S. Old U.S. Highway 41 P.O. Box 500 Carlisle, IN 47838 James Blaine Martin james.martin@atg.in.gov _______________________________ Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

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.