United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DENYING PETITIONER'S WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS ON
PREVIOUSLY “FILED” “PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS” & “MOTION TO SHOW CAUSE”
AND ORDER TO RECONSIDER (DKT. NO. 9), AND DENYING
PETITIONER'S MOTION TO REMEDY & DISMISS & SET
ASIDE (DKT. NO. 10)
PAMELA PEPPER, United States District Judge
25, 2017, the court denied without prejudice the
petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus,
denied as moot his motion for leave to proceed without
prepaying the filing fee (because he already had paid the $5
filing fee) and dismissed the case. Dkt. No. 6. After
dismissal, the petitioner filed several motions seeking
reconsideration and other relief. The court will deny these
habeas petition filed on May 1, 2017 asked the court
to open a federal criminal grand jury investigation, citing a
“decade” of constitutional violations and
incidents with the Sheboygan police “[a]s recently as
April 25th of 2017.” Dkt. No. 1 at 3. The
three-page petition, which was not on the court's
official form, provided few facts to support this request.
Dkt. No. 1.
May 24, 2017 order denying the petition, the court explained
to the petitioner that the law did not provide him with a
private right to have someone investigated or prosecuted.
Dkt. No. 6 at 4. The court told the petitioner that there
were several things he could do if he believed that the
defendants, or someone working for them, had committed crimes
against him, but that this court could not do as he
requested. Id. The court also explained that, to the
extent that he was alleging that there was something
constitutionally or legally wrong with his pending Sheboygan
County criminal case, he needed to raise those issues with
the Sheboygan County Circuit Court. Id. at 6.
Finally, the court advised the petitioner that he could not
remove a state criminal case to federal court. Id.
Petitioner's writ of error coram nobis on previously
“filed” “petition for writ
of habeas corpus” & “motion to show
cause” and order to reconsider (Dkt. No. 9)
days after the court entered judgment, the court received
from the petitioner a document entitled “writ of error
coram nobis on previously ‘filed' ‘petition
for writ of habeas corpus' & ‘motion to show
cause' and order to reconsider.” Dkt. No. 9 at 1.
The motion indicates that, in dismissing his petition, the
court committed criminal trespass, obstruction of justice,
criminal “fraud, treason, racketeering, corruption, and
domestic terrorism, ” and refers to the court as a
“judicial usurper.” Id. at 3. The
petitioner states that, because the clerk of court did not
caption the case, word for word, the way he did in his
petition, the clerk's actions were “criminally
unacceptable.” Id. He alleges that the court
conspired with Stephen Dries (clerk of court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin) and Kristine Wrobel (deputy clerk) to
disregard and dismiss his pleadings. Id. He argues
that these actions deprived him of his right to meaningful
access to the courts. Id.
petitioner asks the court to reconsider its decision for
several reasons. First, he argues that by
“renaming” his pleading, the court stripped him
of his pro se status, despite knowing that he is not
a lawyer. Id. at 6. Second, he argues that 28 U.S.C.
§2243 requires a court to return a writ of habeas
corpus within three days, but that the court took
thirty-six days to issue its decision; this, he claims,
constituted an unlawful suspension of his right to habeas
corpus. Id. Third, he the petitioner reiterates that the
City of Sheboygan fabricated evidence, falsified documents,
kidnapped him, falsely imprisoned him and committed a number
of other offenses against him, and says that by dismissing
his case, the court conspired to deny him his rights just as
the City did. Id. Fourth, he argues that under
“judicial cognizance, ” any time a court receives
notice that someone's rights have been violated, that
judge must act, “with or without proved
evidence.” Id. at 7. Fifth, he asserts that
the court delayed his case by demanding that he file a formal
application for waiver of the filing fee, and ignoring the
informal one he filed. Id. Sixth, he disagrees with
the court's conclusion that the law does not give him a
right to remove a state criminal case to federal court.
Id. Seventh, he argues that the City of Sheboygan
“is guilty of mass crimes of Treason by domestic
terrorists, ” and that the court dismissed his petition
despite knowing this. Id. at 8. Finally, the
petitioner states that, by telling him that he has to wait to
find out the result of his state criminal prosecution before
filing a federal habeas petition, the court is
elevating form over substance, and is “defeating the
very nature of Habeas Corpus.” Id.
relief, the petitioner indicates that his motion has the
effect of vacating and nullifying the court's order of
dismissal as fraudulently published, and that it constitutes
an amended petition. Id. at 9.
petitioner did not identify any rule or statute allowing
courts to reconsider their decisions, but there are such
rules. There are two rules that provide a person with a way
to ask a federal court to reconsider a decision. Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 59(e) allows a party to file a motion to
“alter or amend a judgment” within twenty-eight
days of the date the judgment is entered. The clerk of court
entered judgment dismissing the petition on May 25, 2017; the
petitioner would have had to file a Rule 59(e) petition by
June 22, 2017 in order for the court to consider it. The
petitioner dated the current motion June 13, 2017. Although
the court did not receive the motion until June 30, 2017, the
court will consider the petitioner's motion filed as of
the date he put on it, and will consider his motion a valid
Rule 59(e) motion.
order to prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend
judgment, a party must “clearly establish: ‘(1)
that the court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or
(2) that newly discovered evidence precluded entry of
judgment.'” Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v.
Beyrer, 722 F.3d 939, 954 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting
Blue v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 698
F.3d 587, 598 (7th Cir. 2012)). A “manifest
error” is the “wholesale disregard,
misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling
precedent.” Oto v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,
224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting Sedrak v.
Callahan, 987 F.Supp. 1063, 1069 (N.D. Ill. 1997)).
“A ‘manifest error' is not demonstrated by
the disappointment of the losing party.” Id.
petitioner has not pointed to any newly-discovered evidence
in support of his motion to reconsider; he refers only to the
allegations that he made in his petition. Instead, he argues
that in dismissing his petition, the court committed a
manifest error. The petitioner has not “clearly
established” that the court disregarded, misapplied or
failed to recognize controlling precedent. He simply
disagrees with the court's decision to dismiss his
petition. Such a disagreement is not sufficient to support a
Rule 59(e) motion.
other way for a party to ask a court to reconsider a judgment
is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Rule 60(b)
authorizes a court to grant relief from ...