Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ewing v. Hayes

United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin

December 15, 2016


          OPINION & ORDER

          JAMES D. PETERSON District Judge

         Pro se plaintiff DeVon Lytrell Ewing is a prisoner in the custody of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, currently housed at the Kettle Moraine Correctional Institution. Ewing has filed a complaint challenging the revocation of his probation: he alleges that his attorney during the revocation proceedings was ineffective and that he should receive a new revocation hearing. The court determined that Ewing qualifies for in forma pauperis status, and Ewing paid the initial partial filing fee set by the court. Dkt. 5.

         The next step is for the court to screen the complaint and dismiss any portion that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law cannot be sued for money damages. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915, 1915A. When screening a pro se litigant's complaint, the court construes the allegations liberally and in the plaintiff's favor. McGowan v. Hulick, 612 F.3d 636, 640 (7th Cir. 2010). Because Ewing's claims are not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 at this time, I will dismiss his complaint without prejudice.


         I draw the following facts from Ewing's complaint. Dkt. 1 and Dkt. 2.

         Ewing's allegations concern revocation proceedings following an alleged domestic abuse incident. Ewing alleges that his attorney for the revocation proceedings was ineffective: the attorney knew (or should have known) that the probation agent presented false information at the revocation hearing, but the attorney did not explore the issue or offer the victim impact statement into evidence. (The victim impact statement indicates that Ewing did not physically or economically harm the alleged victim.) Ewing further alleges that his attorney was ineffective because he did not cross examine the victim; he did not move to suppress photographs of the victim's injuries; he did not have the officer who handled the underlying incident testify; and he did not appeal the revocation decision. On March 22, 2016, Ewing filed a Booker motion[1] with the Wisconsin Division of Hearings and Appeals (DHA): Ewing requested a new revocation hearing or an evidentiary hearing based on ineffective assistance of revocation counsel and newly discovered evidence. Defendant Brian Hayes, administrator of the DHA, denied the Booker motion.

         Ewing contends that as a result of the probation agent's false information and his attorney's poor decisions, he “was denied the right to have his custody determination based on credible and reliable evidence and information[.]” Dkt. 2, at 5. Ewing implicates defendant Hayes for denying Ewing's Booker motion; defendant Rebecca J. Vahle for her role as DHA administrative law judge during the proceedings; defendant Matt Barnett (whom Ewing identifies as the probation agent in the caption) for providing false information during the proceedings; and defendant Jack C. Hoag (whom Ewing identifies as the attorney in the caption) for providing ineffective assistance.


         Ewing alleges that defendants violated his constitutional rights during the underlying revocation proceedings and brings claims for ineffective assistance of counsel and due process violations.

         In the context of revocation proceedings,

the Supreme Court has held that the defendant has a constitutional right to counsel only if the denial of counsel would violate due process of law, which ordinarily will be true only if the defendant makes a colorable claim “(i) that he has not committed the alleged violation of the conditions upon which he is at liberty; or (ii) that, even if the violation is a matter of public record or is uncontested, there are substantial reasons which justified or mitigated the violation and make revocation inappropriate.”

United States v. Eskridge, 445 F.3d 930, 932 (7th Cir. 2006) (quoting Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 790 (1973)). Under the Gagnon rule, Ewing may have had a constitutional right to counsel during the revocation proceedings he has described: he appears to have asserted-or attempted to assert-that he did not violate his conditions.[2]

         But Ewing cannot bring an ineffective assistance of counsel claim-or any other due process or other constitutional claims arising from the underlying revocation proceedings, for that matter-as filed at this time. “Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus; requests for relief turning on circumstances of confinement may be presented in a § 1983 action.” Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (per curiam) (internal citation omitted). Put differently, prisoners may bring claims for injunctive relief or money damages for unconstitutional things that happen to them in a civil complaint via 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and they may challenge the fact or duration of their confinement in a habeas petition via 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Ewing's complaint appears to do both: he asks for a new revocation hearing and money damages as a result of unconstitutional acts. I see problems with both sides to Ewing's complaint.

         Ewing directly challenges the decision to revoke him (as a result of his ineffective revocation counsel or other due process violations), and because he seeks a new revocation hearing, he should have filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2254. See, e.g., United States v. Hawkins, 375 F. App'x 623, 625 (7th Cir. 2010) ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.