RILEY v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION et al
| CLINTON RILEY |
| DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION and INDIANA PAROLE DIST. #3 |
| 1:2017cv04616 |
| December 14, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Mark J. Dinsmore |
| Tanya Walton Pratt |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
35
ENTRY DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY - Clinton Riley's petition for a writ of habeas corpus does not present any claim on which this Court may grant him relief. For the reasons discussed above, M r. Riley's petition must be denied. His ex post facto and double jeopardy claims are dismissed with prejudice; his constitutional challenge to the condition leading to the revocation of his parole is dismissed without prejudice; and his chal lenges to his remaining conditions of parole and the fact and conditions of his sex offender classification do not affect his custody and are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Finally, the clerk is directed to update the docket to reflect that Keith Butts is the respondent in this action. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. The Court therefore denies a certificate of appealability. (Copy to Petitioner via U.S. Mail) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/18/2018.(JDC)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
