MCDONALD v. SMITH
||DALE MANZELL MCDONALD
||PUTNAMVILLE CF (Court Use Only)
||January 27, 2017
||US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
||Terre Haute Office
||Mark J. Dinsmore
||Larry J. McKinney
|Nature of Suit:
||Habeas Corpus (General)
|Cause of Action:
||28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|May 3, 2017
Entry Discussing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Denying Certificate of Appealability - "Subject-matter jurisdiction is the first question in every case, and if the court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction it must proceed no further. " The petition of Dale McDonald for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) fails this test and the action must therefore be dismissed. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Govern ing § 2254 Proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the Court finds that the petitioner has failed to show that reasonable jurists would find it "debatable whether [this court] was correct in its procedural ruling." The court ther efore denies a certificate of appealability. As to the present case, with the prior habeas petition having been adjudicated on the merits, and in the absence of authorization for the present filing from the Court of Appeals, this action must now be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Larry J. McKinney on 5/3/2017.(APD)
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
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.
Why Is My Information Online?