United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DEBRADRE D. JACKSON, Petitioner,
PAUL S. KEMPER, Respondent.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT
PREPAYMENT OF THE FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 2) AND SCREENING
PETITION (DKT. NO. 1).
PAMELA PEPPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
D. Jackson filed a pro se petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. Dkt.
No. 1. He also filed a motion for leave to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee, along with his prisoner trust
fund account statement. Dkt. Nos. 2, 5.
Motion for Leave to Proceed Without Prepaying the Filing
28 U.S.C. §1915, an indigent litigant may file a
petition for habeas corpus relief without paying the
required costs and fees if he files an affidavit stating that
he does not have the ability “to pay such fees or give
security therefor, ” and stating “the nature of
the action, defense or appeal and affiant's belief that
the person is entitled to redress.” 28 U.S.C.
§1915(a)(1). Because the filing fee for a petition for
habeas corpus is only $5.00,  it is rare for
this court to conclude that a petitioner does not have
sufficient income or assets to pay the fee.
case, the petitioner's trust account activity statement
shows that, as of March 30, 2017, he had a balance of $0.00.
Dkt. No. 5 at 3. His average monthly balance also was $0.00.
Id. Consequently, it does not appear that he can pay
the filing fee. The court will grant the petition to proceed
without prepayment of fees and costs. Dkt. No. 2.
Screening the Petition
December 10, 2014, the petitioner was convicted in Milwaukee
County Circuit Court of substantial battery, repeat offender.
Dkt. No. 1 at 2. The circuit court sentenced him to three
years of initial confinement and two years of extended
supervision, for a total sentence of five years. Id.
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, and
the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied his petition for review.
Id. at 3. He also pursued a post-conviction motion
under Wis.Stat. §974.06, which the circuit court denied
on November 28, 2016. Id. at 4.
petitioner filed this federal habeas petition on
March 24, 2017. Dkt. No. 1. The petitioner alleges three
grounds of relief. Id. at 6-8. In Ground One, he
argues that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment
confrontation clause rights when it admitted a recording of a
911 call; he argues that he was not able to cross-examine the
caller. Id. at 6. In Ground Two, the petitioner
alleges insufficiency of the evidence; he indicates that the
only evidence that he was the perpetrator was the 911 call,
and that it was not sufficient to identify him. Id.
at 7. In Ground Three, the petitioner asserts that his Fifth
Amendment due process rights were violated because no one
identified him as the perpetrator of the offense.
Id. at 8.
of the Rules Governing §2254 Proceedings states:
If it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any
attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to
relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the
petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner. If
the petition is not dismissed, the judge must order the
respondent to file an answer, motion, or other response
within a fixed time . . . .
screening court must allow a habeas petition to
proceed unless it is clear to the court that the petitioner
is not entitled to relief in the district court. At the
screening stage, the court expresses no view on the merits of
any of the petitioner's claims; the court considers only
whether the petitioner has stated claims of a type that are
generally cognizable on habeas review.
Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause guarantees a
criminal defendant the right to be confronted with the
witnesses against him. The petitioner argues that by
admitting the recording of the 911 call at his trial, the
trial court denied him that right. Without considering the
merits of that ...