Federal Judge Disregards Federal Law & FRCP

Case 1:12-cv-01688-TWP-TAB Document 1 Filed 11/16/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1

Case 1:12-cv-01688-TWP-TAB Document 1-1 Filed 11/16/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

MENES ANKH EL, )
)
Petitioner, )
vs. ) Case No.1:12-cv-1688-TWP-TAB
)
)
SHERIFF JOHN R. LAYTON, )
)
Respondent. )

ORDER DENYING DEMAND FOR RESPONSE

I.
A copy of the Truth Affidavit in the Nature of a Demand for Response (Dkt. 8) filed on
May 3, 2013, shall be included with the petitioners copy of this Entry.
II.
This matter is before the Court on The petitioner, Menes Ankh Els Affidavit in the
Nature of a Demand for Response. (the Affidavit and Demand). The Affidavit and Demand
makes reference to the pending action for habeas corpus relief. The habeas petition makes other
assertions, some of which are vague and most of which have been found by the courts in this
Circuit to be baseless. See United States of America v. Bolivar Benabe, et al., 654 F.3d 753, 767
(7th Cir. 2011)(7th Cir. 2011)(We have repeatedly rejected their theories of individual
sovereignty, immunity from prosecution, and their ilk. Regardless of an individuals claimed
status of descent, be it as a sovereign citizen, a secured-party creditor, or a flesh-and-blood
human being, that person is not beyond the jurisdiction of the courts. These theories should be
rejected summarily, however they are presented.)(internal citations omitted).
In his Affidavit and Demand, Petitioner directs the Court to honor a default judgment
against the Defendants. However, it is the court, not the parties, who is given the responsibility
for directing the proceedings in an action for habeas corpus relief. This is prescribed by 28
U.S.C. 2243, which requires the court to dispose of the matter as law and justice require. See
Porter v. McCollum, 130 S. Ct. 447, 452 (2009)(citing Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374, 390
(2005)). Petitioner should not succumb to the notion that the defendants [or this court], by
failing to respond to documents which he sent to them, somehow concede[ ] and stipulate[ ]
to his interpretation of the law and the rights and duties it recognizes. Stanton v. Hutchins, 2010
WL 1418563 (W.D.Mich. Apr. 7, 2010). A ruling on the Application for writ of habeas corpus
is forthcoming.
The petitioners Affidavit and Demand [dkt. 8] is therefore DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: __________________

Distribution:

Menes Ankh El
Marion County Jail
40 S. Alabama St.
Indianapolis, IN 46204
06/03/2013

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

MENES ANKH EL, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
)
)
Respondent. )

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

I.
A copy of the motion filed on June 6, 2013, shall be included with the petitioners copy
of this Entry.
II.
The petitioners motion for default judgment [Dkt 12] is denied because the respondent
has not yet been ordered to respond to the allegations in the petition for writ of habeas corpus
and therefore is not in default.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: __________________

Distribution:

Menes Ankh El
Marion County Jail
40 S. Alabama St.

06/12/2013

________________________

MENES ANKH EL, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
GIL PETERS, Superintendent, )
)
Respondent. )

E N T R Y
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Menes Ankh Els Demand to Transfer
Proceedings (Dkt. 16).
I.
As an initial matter, Petitioner has moved to amend the caption as he is longer in the
custody of Marion County Sheriff, John R. Layton. The habeas petitioner is now confined at the
Branchville Correctional Facility, an Indiana prison. The Superintendent of that prison, named in
his official capacity only, is substituted as the respondent, as shown in the caption of this Entry.
The petitioners suggestion that the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Correction be
designated as a co-respondent is not accepted as the superintendent of Branchville Correctional
is the proper respondent in this action.
II.
The petitioner seeks the recusal of the undersigned because he disagrees with one or more
rulings in this action and because the undersigned was formerly a judicial officer in a trial court
of this State. This request is denied for the reasons stated below.
Federal law provides that [a]ny . . . judge . . . shall disqualify h[er]self in any proceeding
in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. 28 U.S.C. 455(a). The standard in
any case for a ' 455(a) recusal is whether the judge's impartiality could be questioned by a
reasonable, well-informed observer.@Id. In Hook v. McDade, 89 F.3d 350, 354 (7th Cir. 1996),
the court stated that ' 455(a) Aasks whether a reasonable person perceives a significant risk that
the judge will resolve the case on a basis other than the merits. This is an objective inquiry.@The
purpose of the statute is to preserve the appearance of impartiality. United States v. Johnson,
680 F.3d 966, 979 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 672 (2012).
Judicial rulings, routine trial administration efforts, and ordinary admonishments are not
grounds for recusal. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994). In order to justify recusal
under 455(a), the impartiality of which a judge is accused will almost always be extrajudicial.
Id. at 554; O'Regan v. Arbitration Forums, Inc., 246 F.3d 975, 988 (7th Cir. 2001); In re
Huntington Commons Assocs., 21 F.3d 157, 158-59 (7th Cir. 1994). Thus, [w]hen a motion for
recusal fails to set forth an extrajudicial source for the alleged bias and no such source is
apparent, the motion should be denied. Sprinpangler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 759 F. Supp.
1327, 1329 (S.D.Ind. 1991) (citing Jaffree v. Wallace, 837 F.2d 1461, 1465 (11th Cir. 1988)).
The petitioners dissatisfaction with prior rulings by the undersigned is not evidence of
bias, nor is it otherwise a valid basis for a change of judge. As to the second factor cited in the
motion for disqualification, the former service of the undersigned as a judicial officer in the State
of Indiana does not undercut my impartiality, which is both presumed, see United States v.
Baskes, 687 F.2d 165, 170 (7th Cir. 1981), and a reality. The court concludes that there is no
legitimate basis for the petitioner to seek the disqualification of the undersigned. The motion to
recuse thus fails under ' 455(a)(1) because the circumstances reviewed above do not
demonstrate an objectively reasonable basis for questioning my impartiality. In addition, no
circumstances associated with this action warrant the disqualification of the undersigned judge
under any provision of ' 455(b).
Based on the foregoing, therefore, the petitioners motion to transfer proceedings (Dkt.
16) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: __________

Distribution:

Menes Ankh El
DOC # 233632
BRANCHVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
21390 Old State Road 37
BRANCHVILLE, IN 47514
12/02/2013

________________________

MENES ANKH EL, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
)
)
Respondent. )

E N T R Y
I.
The petitioners motion to amend [Dkt 17] is granted.
The motion to amend shall be re-docketed as the amended petition for writ of habeas
corpus.
A copy of the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus shall be included with the
petitioners copy of this Entry.
II.
The petitioners second demand that the court immediately issue an order to show cause
[Dkt 15] is denied. The reason for this ruling is that the amended petition for writ of habeas
corpus has just been filed, at the petitioners request, and the court is obligated to conduct a
preliminary review of that pleading pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255
Proceedings in the United States District Courts. The petitioner will be notified when that step
has been taken.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: ______________
12/03/2013

________________________

Distribution:

Menes Ankh El
DOC # 233632
Inmate Mail/Parcels

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse
Room 2722 - 219 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Office of the Clerk
Phone: (312) 435-5850
www.ca7.uscourts.gov
NOTICE OF DOCKETING - Short Form
December 17, 2013
To: Laura A. Briggs
District/Bankruptcy Clerk
The below captioned appeal has been docketed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit:
Appellate Case No: 13-3814
Caption:
IN RE:
MENES ANKH EL, formerly known as WENDELL BROWN,
Petitioner
District Court No: 1:12-cv-01688-TWP-TAB
Clerk/Agency Rep Laura Briggs
District Judge Tanya Pratt
If you have any questions regarding this appeal, please call this office.
form name: c7_Docket_Notice_short_form(form ID: 188)
Office of the Clerk
Phone: (312) 435-5850
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING CIRCUIT RULE 3(b) NOTICE
December 17, 2013
No.: 13-3814
IN RE:
MENES ANKH EL, formerly known as WENDELL BROWN,
Petitioner
Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Clerk/Agency Rep Laura A. Briggs
District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt
Circuit Rule 3(b) empowers the clerk to dismiss a petition if the docket fee is not paid within
fourteen (14) days of the docketing of the petition. This petition was docketed and the fee has
not been paid as of December 17, 2013. Depending on your situation, you should:
1.
Pay the required $500.00 docketing fee to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals.
2.
File a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis with the Court of Appeals.
An original and three (3) copies of that motion, with proof of service on your
opponent, is required. This motion must be supported by a affidavit in the form
of a sworn statement listing the assets and income of the petitioner(s). See Form 4
of the Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (as amended
12/01/2013).
If one of the above stated actions is not taken, the petition will be dismissed.
form name: c7_OP_Fee_Notice_Sent(form ID: 189)
1


MENES ANKH EL, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
)
Respondent. )

Entry and Order to Show Cause
Petitioner Menes Ankh Els has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The status of
this matter is as follows: The court continues to seek information sufficient to permit the review
required by Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings in the United States
District Courts. Additionally, a mandamus action filed by the petitioner appears to be pending
on his in forma pauperis request in the Court of Appeals. In an effort to advance these
proceedings, the court makes the following Entry.
I. Information Sought
This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. 2254(a).
A federal court may not grant an application for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a
person in state custody with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court
proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim: (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to,
or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an
2

unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court
proceeding. 28 U.S.C. 2254(d).
Petitioner Menes Ankh El shall have through March 13, 2014, in which to 1) identify
which of his habeas claims were addressed on the merits by the Indiana state courts, and 2)
explain whether and how the habeas claims addressed on the merits by the Indiana state courts
justify relief under 2254(d)(1) or 2254(d)(2), or both.
II. Show Cause Order
The petitioner=s custodian is directed to answer the allegations of the petitioner=s petition
for a writ of habeas corpus, and in doing so shall show cause why the relief sought by the
petitioner should not be granted insofar as the petitioner challenges the deprivation of a
recognized liberty interest affecting the fact or the duration of his confinement. This shall be
done within twenty (20) days after the date this Entry is signed. The petitioner shall have twenty
(20) days after service of such answer or return to order to show cause on him in which to reply.
A copy of this Entry and Order to Show Cause shall be sent to the Indiana Attorney
General through a Notice of Electronic Filing ("NEF") generated by the court's CM/ECF case
management system. The Indiana Attorney General has previously been provided with a copy of
the habeas petition itself.
SO ORDERED.

Date:

02/19/2014

________________________
3

Distribution:

habeas@atg.in.gov

Menes Ankh El
DOC # 233632
Inmate Mail/Parcels
UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALSFORTHESEVENTHCIRCUIT
EverettMcKinleyDirksenUnitedStatesCourthouse
Room2722219S.DearbornStreet
Chicago,Illinois60604
OfficeoftheClerk
Phone:(312)4355850
ORDER
SubmittedFebruary24,2014
DecidedFebruary26,2014
Before
RICHARDA.POSNER,CircuitJudge
MICHAELS.KANNE,CircuitJudge
ILANADIAMONDROVNER,CircuitJudge
No.:133814
INRE:
MENESANKHEL,formerlyknownasWENDELLBROWN,
Petitioner
PetitionforWritofMandamus
DistrictCourtNo:1:12cv01688TWPTAB
DistrictJudgeTanyaWaltonPratt
Thefollowingarebeforethecourt:
1. TRUTHAFFIDAVITINTHENATUREOFADEMANDTOTRANSFER
PROCEEDINGS,filedonDecember17,2013,bytheprosepetitioner.
2. AFFIDAVITACCOMPANYINGMOTIONFORPERMISSIONTOAPPEAL
INFORMAPAUPERIS,filedonDecember30,2014,bytheprosepetitioner.
InlightofthedistrictcourtsFebruary19,2014,orderdirectingtherespondentto
answerpetitionershabeaspetition,
ITISORDEREDthatthemandamuspetitionisDENIED.
ITISFURTHERORDEREDthat#2isGRANTED.
formname:c7_Order_3J(formID:177)
Office of the Clerk
Phone: (312) 435-5850
NOTICE OF DOCKETING - Short Form
April 30, 2014
To: Laura A. Briggs
District/Bankruptcy Clerk
To: Tanya Walton Pratt
District Court Judge
The below captioned appeal has been docketed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit:
Appellate Case No: 14-1974
Caption:
IN RE:
WENDELL BROWN, now known as MENES ANKH EL,
Petitioner
Clerk/Agency Rep Laura Briggs
District Judge Tanya Pratt
If you have any questions regarding this appeal, please call this office.
CC:
form name: c7_Docket_Notice_short_form(form ID: 188)
Office of the Clerk
Phone: (312) 435-5850
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING CIRCUIT RULE 3(b) NOTICE
April 30, 2014
No.: 14-1974
IN RE:
Petitioner
Clerk/Agency Rep Laura A. Briggs
Circuit Rule 3(b) empowers the clerk to dismiss a petition if the docket fee is not paid within
fourteen (14) days of the docketing of the petition. This petition was docketed and the fee has
not been paid as of April 30, 2014. Depending on your situation, you should:
1.
Pay the required $500.00 docketing fee to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals.
2.
File a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis with the Court of Appeals.
An original and three (3) copies of that motion, with proof of service on your
opponent, is required. This motion must be supported by a affidavit in the form
of a sworn statement listing the assets and income of the petitioner(s). See Form 4
of the Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (as amended
12/01/2013).
If one of the above stated actions is not taken, the petition will be dismissed.
form name: c7_OP_Fee_Notice_Sent(form ID: 189)

MENES ANKH EL, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
)
Respondent. )

Entry and Second Order to Show Cause
I.
The petitioner again seeks an entry of default. As to that point, the court agrees with the
following:
Default judgments are not appropriate in habeas corpus cases. A habeas petitioner
is not entitled to release because of the state's tardiness in responding to the
petition. See Broussard v. Lippman, 643 F.2d 1131 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 452
U.S. 920, 101 S. Ct. 3059, 69 L.Ed.2d 425 (1981); United States ex rel. Mattox v.
Scott, 507 F.2d 919 (7th Cir. 1974). To hold otherwise would improperly place
the burden of default upon the community at large. Mattox, 507 F.2d at 919.

Queen v. Outlaw, 2007 WL 2900493 (E.D.Tex. Sept. 28, 2007). Based on the foregoing, the
petitioners request for the issuance of a default judgment [dkt 27] is denied.
II.
The petitioner=s custodian is again directed to answer the allegations of the petitioner=s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and in doing so shall show cause why the relief sought by
the petitioner should not be granted insofar as the petitioner challenges the deprivation of a
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:

Distribution:

habeas@atg.in.gov

Menes Ankh El
DOC # 233632
Inmate Mail/Parcels
05/20/2014

________________________
Office of the Clerk
Phone: (312) 435-5850
ORDER
Submitted May 16, 2014
Decided May 22, 2014
Before
WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge
JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge
JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge
No.: 14-1974
IN RE:
Petitioner
The following are before the court:
1. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, filed on April 30, 2014, by the
pro se petitioner.
2. TRUTH AFFIDAVIT IN THE NATURE OF A DEMAND FOR FILING
FEES TO BE WAIVED, filed on April 30, 2014, by the pro se petitioner.
In light of the district court's order dated May 20, 2014, ordering respondent to file an
answer within 20 days and denying petitioner's requests for default judgment, the
petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
form name: c7_Order_3J(form ID: 177)

MENES ANKH EL, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
)
Respondent. )

Entry and Second Order to Show Cause
I.
The petitioner again seeks an entry of default. As to that point, the court agrees with the
following:
Default judgments are not appropriate in habeas corpus cases. A habeas petitioner
is not entitled to release because of the state's tardiness in responding to the
petition. See Broussard v. Lippman, 643 F.2d 1131 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 452
U.S. 920, 101 S. Ct. 3059, 69 L.Ed.2d 425 (1981); United States ex rel. Mattox v.
Scott, 507 F.2d 919 (7th Cir. 1974). To hold otherwise would improperly place
the burden of default upon the community at large. Mattox, 507 F.2d at 919.

Queen v. Outlaw, 2007 WL 2900493 (E.D.Tex. Sept. 28, 2007). Based on the foregoing, the
petitioners request for the issuance of a default judgment [dkt 27] is denied.
II.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:

Distribution:

habeas@atg.in.gov

Menes Ankh El
DOC # 233632
Inmate Mail/Parcels
05/20/2014

________________________
Office of the Clerk
Phone: (312) 435-5850
ORDER
Submitted May 16, 2014
Decided May 22, 2014
Before
WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge
JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge
JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge
No.: 14-1974
IN RE:
Petitioner
The following are before the court:
1. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, filed on April 30, 2014, by the
pro se petitioner.
2. TRUTH AFFIDAVIT IN THE NATURE OF A DEMAND FOR FILING
FEES TO BE WAIVED, filed on April 30, 2014, by the pro se petitioner.
In light of the district court's order dated May 20, 2014, ordering respondent to file an
answer within 20 days and denying petitioner's requests for default judgment, the
petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.
form name: c7_Order_3J(form ID: 177)

MENES ANKH EL, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
)
Respondent. )

Entry Directing Further Proceedings
The petitioner, a state prisoner, seeks habeas corpus relief with respect to his conviction
entered in Marion County, Indiana. The respondent has been ordered to show cause why the
relief sought by the petitioner should not be granted. Although that step has been taken, another
inquiry is warranted.
I.
Ensuring the existence of subject-matter jurisdiction is the court's first duty in every
lawsuit. Winters v. FruCon, Inc., 498 F.3d 734, 740 (7th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, not only
may the federal courts police subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte, they must. Wernsing v.
Thompson, 423 F.3d 732, 743 (7th Cir. 2005).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Newell Operating Co., v. Int'l Union of
United Auto., Aero., & Agric., Implement Workers of Am., 532 F.3d 583, 587 (7th Cir. 2008).
The federal courts may only exercise jurisdiction over cases when that jurisdiction is
specifically authorized by federal statute. Id.

II.
This habeas action is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254(a). A necessary predicate for
the granting of federal habeas relief [to a petitioner] is a determination by the federal court that
[his or her] custody violates the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Rose vs.
Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). The scope of federal habeas review is limited. Wilson v.
Corcoran, 131 S. Ct. 13, 16 (2010)([I]t is only noncompliance with federal law that renders a
States criminal judgment susceptible to collateral attack in the federal courts. The habeas statute
unambiguously provides that a federal court may issue the writ to a state prisoner only on the
ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States. 28 U.S.C. 2254(a). And we have repeatedly held that federal habeas corpus relief does
not lie for errors of state law. It is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-
court determinations on state-law questions.) (some internal citations and quotations omitted).
III.
One basis for the habeas petition, and perhaps the only basis, is the claim that the state
court lacked jurisdiction over the petitioner. A claim of this nature has consistently been found
insufficient to support the exercise of habeas corpus jurisdiction. See, e.g., Wills v. Egeler, 532
F.2d 1058, 1059 (6th Cir. 1976)(Determination of whether a particular state court has
jurisdiction under state law is a function of the state courts, not the federal judiciary.); Smith v.
Burt, No. 08CV14239, 2008 WL 4791348, *2 (E.D.Mich. Oct. 24, 2008) (dismissing habeas
petition where prisoner claimed that the state court lacked jurisdiction and the trial judge and
attorneys lacked proper authority and licensing).


IV.
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner shall have through June 10, 2014, in which to (1)
show cause why any claim in his petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the Indiana trial
courts jurisdiction over him should not be summarily dismissed and (2) identify what further
claim, if any, is asserted in this action.
V.
The Clerk of Court is directed to update the docket to reflect the petitioners correct
address and DOC number as noted in his filing at dkt. 16 and in the distribution list of this entry.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: __________________

Distribution:

habeas@atg.in.gov

Menes Ankh El
DOC # 233632
Inmate Mail/Parcels
05/28/2014

________________________

MENES ANKH EL, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
)
Respondent. )

Entry and Third Order to Show Cause
I.
The cause of action code for this action shall be changed to 28:2254(a). This will
facilitate notice of the action and of this Order to Show Cause reaching the Indiana Attorney
General.
II.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:

Distribution:

habeas@atg.in.gov

Menes Ankh El
DOC # 233632
Inmate Mail/Parcels
06/09/2014

________________________

MENES ANKH EL, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
)
Respondent. )

Entry and Notice
The petitioner shall have through July 10, 2014 in which to comply with directions issued
on May 29, 2014. If he fails to do so the court may infer that he has abandoned the action, which
could then be dismissed for failure to prosecute without further notice to the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:

Distribution:

habeas@atg.in.gov

Menes Ankh El
DOC # 233632
Inmate Mail/Parcels
06/16/2014

________________________
1

MENES ANKH EL, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) No. 1:12-cv-01688-TWP-TAB
)
GIL PETERS, )
)
)
Respondent. )

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

GREGORY F. ZOELLER, Attorney General of Indiana, by Henry A. Flores, Jr.,
Deputy Attorney General, hereby enters his appearance for the Respondent in the above-
referenced matter.

Respectfully submitted,
GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Attorney General of Indiana

s/ Henry A. Flores, Jr.
Henry A. Flores, Jr.
Deputy Attorney General
Atty. No. 27837-22

2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing document has been duly served upon the
individual listed below, by United States Postal Service, on the 25
th
day of June, 2014.

MENES ANKH EL DOC #233632
Inmate Mail/Parcels


OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Indiana Government Center South, Fifth Floor
302 West Washington Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
317-233-1665(voice)
317-232-7979 (facsimile)
Henry.Flores@atg.in.gov

MENES ANKH EL f/k/a WENDELL, )
BROWN, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) No. 1:12-cv-01688-TWP-TAB
)
SUPERINTENDENT, BRANCHVILLE )
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, )
)
Respondent. )

FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE RETURN TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Respondent respectfully requests that this Court grant him an extension of time of
25 days, up to and including July 25, 2014, within which to file his Return to the Order to
Show Cause.
1. It appears Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus directed at his
confinement for three separate state criminal cases in Marion County, Indiana.
2. This court directed Respondent to show cause by June 30, 2014, why
relief should not be granted. The deadline to respond has not yet passed.
3. Respondent is currently investigating whether Petitioners claims are
properly exhausted and to the extent there is any appellate record, Respondent has yet to
receive that record record and is therefore unable to adequately respond to the issues
raised by Petitioner. As such, he is unable to file a response by June 30, 2014, and now
seeks an extension of time in which to file the Return to Order to Show Cause.
2
4. This is Respondents counsels first request for an extension of time in this
case. Respondents counsel requests an additional 25 days, up to and including July 25,
2014, within which to file his response.
WHEREFORE, Respondent requests that this Court grant him an extension of
time of an additional 25 days within which to file a Return to the Order to Show Cause.
Respectfully submitted,
GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Attorney General of Indiana


Attorneys for Respondent

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I have electronically filed the foregoing document. I hereby certify that on
July 1, 2014, I have served the foregoing document on the individual listed below through U.S.
Mail, first-class postage pre-paid:

Menes Ankh El
DOC # 233632
Inmate Mail/Parcels


OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Indiana Government Center South, Fifth Floor
302 West Washington Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
317-233-1665 (voice)
317-232-7979 (facsimile)
henry.flores@atg.in.gov

MENES ANKH EL f/k/a WENDELL, )
BROWN, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) No. 1:12-cv-01688-TWP-TAB
)
SUPERINTENDENT, BRANCHVILLE )
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, )
)
Respondent. )

ENTRY GRANTING RESPONDENTS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Respondent has filed a motion for extension of time requesting an additional 25
days within which to file a return to the order to show cause and respond to Petitioners
petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
The Court GRANTS the motion and gives Respondent up to and including July
25, 2014 within which to file a response to the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Date: ___________ ______________________________
Copies to:

Menes Ankh El
DOC # 233632
Inmate Mail/Parcels

Electronically Registered Counsel


MENES ANKH EL, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
CHRIS MORRISON, Director, )
Duvall Residential Center, )
)
Respondent. )

Entry Discussing Selected Matters
I.
A copy of the docket sheet and a copy of the Entry and Notice issued on June 16, 2014
shall be included with the petitioners copy of this Entry.
II.
The petitioners current address has been noted on the docket.
The petitioners current custodian is substituted as the respondent.
III.
The respondents motion for enlargement of time [dkt 38] is granted to the extent that the
respondent shall have through August 27, 2014 in which to show cause why the relief sought by
the petitioner should not be granted.

IV.
The petitioner shall have through August 5, 2014 in which to comply with directions
issued on May 29, 2014. If he fails to do so the court may infer that he has abandoned the action,
which could then be dismissed for failure to prosecute without further notice to the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:

Distribution:

Menes Ankh El
DOC # 233632
DUVALL RESIDENTIAL CENTER
1848 LUDLOW AVENUE
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46201

Electronically Registered Counsel

07/07/2014

________________________

MENES ANKH EL, )
)
Petitioner, )
vs. ) No. 1:12-cv-1688-TWP-TAB
)
)
)
Respondent. )

Entry Discussing Selected Matters
I.
Menes Ankh El is confined at the Marion County Jail I and seeks a writ of
habeas corpus. The sole proper respondent in such an action is his custodian,
Sheriff Layton. The inclusion of any co-respondent is improper and unnecessary.
Warden Conway is stricken as a co-respondent.
II.
The petitioners request to proceed proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 4] is
denied because the filing fee for this action was paid with the filing of the habeas
petition itself.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: _______________

Distribution:
Menes Ankh El, #409402
Marion County Jail II
40 S. Alabama St.
04/10/2013

________________________

MENES ANKH EL, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
)
)
Respondent. )

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

I.
A copy of the motion filed on April 18, 2013, shall be included with the petitioners copy
of this Entry.
II.
The petitioners motion for default judgment [Dkt. 6] is denied because the respondent
has not been ordered to respond to the allegations in the petition for writ of habeas corpus.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: __________________

Distribution:

Menes Ankh El, #409402
Marion County Jail
40 S. Alabama St.
04/24/2013

________________________

Federal Judge Disregards Federal Law & FRCP

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Federal Judge Disregards Federal Law & FRCP

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case 1:12-cv-01688-TWP-TAB Document 1 Filed 11/16/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1

Case 1:12-cv-01688-TWP-TAB Document 1 Filed 11/16/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 2

Вам также может понравиться