United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, District Judge.
Petitioner Erwin Leyba's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [dkt. 2] is denied because Leyba paid the $5.00 filing fee on May 8, 2014.
Leyba is confined in an Indiana correctional facility as the result of his Indiana convictions for conspiracy and dealing in cocaine or narcotic drugs. See Leyba v. State, No. 71A04-9402-CR-53 (Ind.App.Ct. March 21, 1995). He recently litigated to completion an earlier habeas action in the Northern District of Indiana, this being Leyba v. Superintendent, 3:11-CV-198 JD, 2013 WL 351107 (N.D.Ind. Jan. 29, 2013). Leyba's habeas petition makes reference to the prior habeas action, as well as to a host of other rulings in the state courts. Leyba seeks damages and his release.
"District courts should not have to read and decipher tomes disguised as pleadings." Lindell v. Houser, 442 F.3d 1033, 1035 n.1 (7th Cir. 2006). This fully applies to the awkward and confused verbiage which Leyba has compiled in his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Based on the foregoing, and based also on the fact that notice pleading does not suffice in an action for habeas corpus relief, see Lloyd v. Van Natta, 296 F.3d 630, 633 (7th Cir. 2002), the petitioner shall have through June 6, 2014, in which to supplement his petition for a writ of habeas corpus by doing the following:
! First, he shall re-state with clarity each of the claims he asserts in this action and shall explain the facts or circumstances (not the law) supporting each such claim.
! Second, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), petitioner shall supplement his petition by identifying with respect to each of his claims in what sense, if any, the state court's adjudication (i) resulted in a decision that was contrary to clearly established Federal Law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States or (ii) resulted in a decision which was an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal Law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. The petitioner shall also, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), identify with respect to each of his claims, in what sense the state court's adjudication resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding.
! As to any claim which has not previously been presented to the Indiana state the claim to the Indiana state courts.
Leyba's habeas petition makes reference to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The habeas petition cannot be treated as such a motion relative to any prior litigation in this District because ...