PRINGLE v. STATE OF INDIANA et al
| ROGER PRINGLE |
| STATE OF INDIANA and GOVERNMENT AGENCY OR OFFICER'S OF BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY, INDIANA, COURT AND PROSECUTOR |
| 1:2019cv03961 |
| September 18, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Mark J Dinsmore |
| Tanya Walton Pratt |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 17, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 11
Order - Denying #8 & #9 Motions to Appoint Counsel.Petitioner Roger Pringle filed a habeas corpus petition on September 18, 2019. The Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction and entered final judgment on October 7, 2019. Now before the Court are Mr. Pringle's two motions to appoint counsel, both filed October 11, 2019. Because this Court lacks jurisdiction over the case, those motions, dkt. #8 and dkt. #9 , are denied. Copy to Petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/17/2019. (NAD)
|
| Filing 10 NOTICE Declining Magistrate Judge, filed by Petitioner ROGER PRINGLE (NAD) |
| Filing 9 Second MOTION to Appoint Counsel, filed by Petitioner ROGER PRINGLE. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Certificate of Prisoner Account and Transaction History Inquiry)(NAD) |
| Filing 8 MOTION to Appoint Counsel, filed by Petitioner ROGER PRINGLE. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Miscellaneous documents)(NAD) |
| Filing 7 FINAL JUDGMENT - The Court now enters final judgment. The petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Copy to Petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/7/2019.(NAD) |
|
Filing 6
Order - Dismissing Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus for Lack of Jurisdiction. Roger Pringle brought this action alleging that he is in custody unlawfully pursuant to a negotiated guilty plea in Indiana case number 03D01-1109-FD-5086. He filed a petition on September 18, 2019, dkt. #1 , and an amended petition on September 27, 2019, dkt. #4 . Mr. Pringle already has brought a 2254 habeas petition in this Court challenging the same conviction. That petition was denied as procedurally defaulted. Pringle v. Warden, No. 1:18-cv-03200-RLY- DLP, dkt. 28 (Dec. 17, 2018). When there has already been a decision on the merits in a federal habeas action, to obtain another round of federal collateral review a petitioner requires permission from the Court of Appeals under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b). There is no indication that Mr. Pringle has obtained leave from the Seventh Circuit to file this successive petition. Accordingly, this action is dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Pringle must seek authorization from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals before this Court may consider his petition. All pending motions are vacated. (See Order.) Copy to Petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 10/7/2019.(NAD)
|
| Filing 5 MOTION for Court to Set Trial by Jury, filed by Petitioner ROGER PRINGLE. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit IU Health Physicians Intake form)(NAD) |
| Filing 4 Submission of Amended Petition, filed by Petitioner ROGER PRINGLE. (NAD) |
| Filing 3 CONSENT to Jurisdiction to US Magistrate Judge Witheld by ROGER PRINGLE. (NAD) |
| Filing 2 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (DJH) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by ROGER PRINGLE. (No fee paid with this filing) (Attachments: #1 medical records)(DJH) |
Access additional case information on PACER
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.
