United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
WILLIAM E. DUFFIN U.S. Magistrate Judge.
Green filed this lawsuit on March 22, 2017. He was recently
released from a Wisconsin prison and would like to return to
Minnesota, where he resides. As the court understands
Green's complaint, he remains on extended supervision
and, for Wisconsin to initiate the procedure to transfer his
supervision to Minnesota, Green must pay a $150 application
fee. Green contends that imposition of a $150 fee is
Green's complaint is his Motion for Leave to Proceed
Without Prepayment of the Filing Fee. (ECF No. 2.) Although
the court finds that Green lacks the financial means to pay
this court's filing fee, the court must further assess
Green's complaint and determine if it is sufficient to
proceed. See 18 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Green has
consented to the full jurisdiction of a magistrate judge.
Because the defendant has not yet been joined, Green is the
only party, and thus the court has the consent of all parties
and is able to dispositively resolve this matter at the
present time. See Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532
(5th Cir. 1995); Hains v. Washington, 131 F.3d 1248,
1249 and n.2 (7th Cir. 1997).
I, sec. 10, cl. 3 of the United States Constitution
authorizes states, with the consent of Congress, to enter
into a compact with another state. Pursuant to that clause,
states, including Wisconsin, see Wis. Stat. §
304.16, and Minnesota, see Minn. Stat. §
343.1605, both participate in the Interstate Compact for
Adult Offender Supervision. “The compact provides a
framework for the supervision of adult offenders who are
authorized to travel across state lines, ‘in such a
manner as to enable each compacting state to track the
location of offenders, transfer supervision authority in an
orderly and efficient manner, and, when necessary, return
offenders to their original jurisdictions.'”
Williams v. Wisconsin, 336 F.3d 576, 582 (7th Cir.
Wis. 2003) (quoting Wis.Stat. § 304.16(1)(a)). The
compact creates a commission to aid in its implementation and
authorizes the commission to create rules that are binding
upon compacting states. Washington v. Neal, 2012
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56292, 8-9 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 23, 2012) (citing
Wis.Stat. § 304.16(14)(a)(2), (b)). The commission
created a rule stating, “Application fee - A
sending state may impose a fee for each application prepared
for an offender.” ICAOS Rules, § 4.107, available
RulesStepbyStep/Chapter4/Rule4107.aspx (last visited March
January 1, 2016, the Wisconsin Department of Corrections
began charging a $150 fee to Wisconsin offenders applying for
a compact transfer to another state. See Minutes,
Interstate Adult Offender Supervision Board Meeting, Nov. 11,
2016, available at
(last visited March 27, 2017). “The intent of the fee
is to offset extradition costs for retaking compact
violators.” Id. The fee cannot be waived and
is non-refundable if the application for transfer is denied.
Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections, Interstate Compact
Application Fee FAQ, http://doc.wi.gov/Documents/
(last visited March 27, 2017); see also Wisconsin
Dept. of Corrections, POC-4 Offender Handbook (English) (Rev.
7/2016) at 12, available at
right of a United States citizen to travel from one State to
another and to take up residence in the State of his choice
is protected by the Federal Constitution.” Jones v.
Helms, 452 U.S. 412, 418 (1981). “The right to
travel has been described as a privilege of national
citizenship, and as an aspect of liberty that is protected by
the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments. Whatever its source, a State may neither tax nor
penalize a citizen for exercising his right to leave one
State and enter another.” Id. at 418-19
this right does not extend to persons on parole or extended
supervision after having been convicted of crimes. With
respect to such persons, “the right to travel is
extinguished for the entire balance of their
sentences.” Williams v. Wisconsin, 336 F.3d
576, 581 (7th Cir. 2003).
Green is on extended supervision, Wisconsin may, consistent
with the United States Constitution, control where he may
live. Attendant this authority is the ability to impose
conditions upon Green's relocation to another state. One
such restriction may be the requirement of a fee to offset
the state's costs associated with his application for
transfer under the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender
based upon the information contained in his complaint, the
court concludes that Green has failed to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. Accordingly, the court will
dismiss Green's complaint and this action pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)(B)(ii).
IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Green's Motion for
Leave to Proceed Without Prepayment of the Filing Fee (ECF
No. 2) is granted.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Green's complaint and
this action are dismissed pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)(B)(ii).
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Green's motion for the
appointment of counsel (ECF ...