United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION
WILLIAM E. DUFFIN U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Hanson, who is incarcerated following the revocation of his
extended supervision, filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. (ECF No. 1.) Hanson was revoked due to the following
rule violations: (1) possessing and using a cell phone with
internet capabilities, (2) accessing and viewing sexually
explicit materials on the Internet, (3) failing to provide
his agent a truthful and accurate statement, (4) using his
cell phone to conduct an Internet search for “little
girls in shorts, ” and (5) being unsuccessfully
terminated from sex offender treatment. (ECF No. 1-1 at 2;
see ECF No. 1 at 2.) He appears to be challenging
the Administrative Law Judge's decision to revoke his
extended supervision and order that he be returned to prison
for two years and six months. (ECF No. 1 at 6-12.) He argues
that, instead of returning to prison, it would have been
better for him to be placed in the Sex Offender
Treatment-Alternative to Revocation Program. (Id. at
6-8.) He also argues that two years and six months “is
too long for my violations. If I have to be revoked 30% [of
my time] is a fair amount so then I can do more of
aftercare.” (ECF No. 1 at 12.)
Hanson's petition is a Motion for Leave to Proceed
Without Prepayment of the Filing Fee (ECF No. 2), which the
court will grant.
court must now review Hanson's petition in accordance
with Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, which
If it plainly appears from 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, or to
take other action the judge may order.
problems are readily apparent from Hanson's petition.
First, it appears that Hanson has failed to exhaust his
remedies in state court. A petitioner is required to exhaust
his state-court remedies before a federal court will consider
the merits of his petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A);
Liberman v. Thomas, 505 F.3d 665, 669 (7th Cir.
2007) (citing Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275
(1971)). A petitioner exhausts his claim when he presents it
to the highest state court for a ruling on the merits.
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845
(1999); Arrieta v. Battaglia, 461 F.3d 861, 868 (7th
Wisconsin, after an administrative appeal, a prisoner who has
had his extended supervision revoked can seek review of the
decision by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari in the
Wisconsin Circuit Court.” Lewis v. Guokas, No.
16-CV-1288, 2016 WL 6068142, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 14, 2016)
(citing State ex rel. Washington v. Schwarz, 620
N.W.2d 414, 419 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). A review of Wisconsin
circuit court records, available at
http://wcca.wicourts.gov, fail to reveal that Hanson
has sought relief from any Wisconsin state court for the
issues he now raises in his petition.
second, and biggest, problem with Hanson's petition is
that he does not present any constitutional claims.
“[A] district court shall entertain an application for
a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody
pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the
ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution
or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28
U.S.C. § 2254(a) (emphasis added). Hanson does not
allege that the Administrative Law Judge violated the
constitution or any other federal law in revoking his
extended supervision and ordering him to return to prison for
two years and six months. He only alleges that the Sex
Offender Treatment-Alternative to Revocation Program would be
a “perfect fit for me, ” and that, if he has to
be revoked, thirty-percent (rather than seventy percent) of
his time “is a fair amount so then I can do more of
aftercare.” (ECF No. 1 at 12.) Since Hanson does not
present any cognizable constitutional claims for which he is
entitled to relief in the district court, the court will
recommend that his petition be dismissed.
IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Hanson's Motion for
Leave to Proceed Without Prepayment of the Filing Fee (ECF
No. 2) is granted.
IS RECOMMENDED that Hanson's petition (ECF No.
1) and this action be dismissed pursuant to
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a certificate of
appealability be denied.
attention is directed to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
(C) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2) whereby written objections to
any recommendation herein or part thereof may be filed within
fourteen days of service of this recommendation. Failure to
file a timely objection with the district court shall result
in a waiver of your right to appeal.