Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Goodwill v. Roesler

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

March 13, 2019

JASON GOODWILL, Petitioner,
v.
SHERIFF ROESLER, Respondent.

         ORDER ADOPTING JUDGE JONES'S RECOMMENDATION (DKT. NO. 7), DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (DKT. NO. 1), DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (DKT. NO. 13), DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

          HON. PAMELA PEPPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On September 30, 2016, the petitioner was charged in Sheboygan County Circuit Court with failing to register as a sex offender as required by Wis.Stat. §301.45(6)(a). Dkt. No. 7 at 2; State v. Goodwill, No. 2016CF000628 (Sheboygan County Circuit Court) (accessible at https://wcca.wicourts.gov). That case remains pending; trial is scheduled for March 20-21, 2019. Id.

         On April 18, 2018, the petitioner filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2241. Dkt. No. 1. Magistrate Judge David E. Jones issued a report, recommending that this court dismiss the petition as premature because of the ongoing state court proceedings. Dkt. No. 7. The petitioner has objected to that recommendation. Dkt. No. 9. He also has filed a motion for default judgment, despite the fact that the court has not set a deadline for the respondent to answer the petition and Judge Jones has recommended its dismissal. Dkt. No. 13.

         The court adopts Judge Jones's recommendation, dismisses the case without prejudice and denies the motion for default judgment.

         II. Allegations in the Petition

         The petitioner challenges his detention in State v. Goodwill, No. 2016CF000628, the case for which he is awaiting trial. He states four grounds for relief. First, he asserts that he is detained under pretense. Dkt. No. 1 at 10. Second, he alleges racketeering, misconduct, “exculpation, ” retaliation, tampering, domestic terrorism, “simulated legal proceedings” and “kangaroo courts by judicial usurpers.” Id. Third, he asserts that his due process rights have been violated, as well as “obstruction, tampering” and retaliation against a crime victim. Id. at 11. Finally, he asserts that he has long-term and chronic serious medical needs that are not being properly addressed in the Sheboygan County Detention Center (SCDC). Id. at 12.

         The petitioner's factual allegations are disjointed. He says that he's in custody because of “usurpers of public office.” Id. at 10. He indicates that he is a federal whistleblower, a victim of racketeering, a witness and an informant, and that as such, he is owed federal protections which he has been denied. Id. He alleges that the case for which he's in custody constitutes double jeopardy, because it is identical to another state case that was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and misconduct. Id. He then mentions a 2009 state case, he says that in 2012 he was released from custody with no restrictions, and that a district attorney convinced courts in Michigan to falsify documents and to falsify the Wisconsin Circuit Court Access electronic docket. Id. at 10-11. He says that the “Eastern District Courts” have evidence of obstruction, fabrication, and tampering.[1] Id. at 11. He says that Sheboygan officials have violated the racketeering act, and that the Sheboygan courts lack integrity. Id. Finally, he says that he has epilepsy and lupus, and has physical disabilities due to being run over. Id. at 12. He alleges that he is not receiving proper treatment for these conditions, and has not for years. Id.

         III. Judge Jones's Recommendation

         Judge Jones found that the petitioner had not demonstrated the exceptional circumstances that would warrant pretrial federal habeas relief. Dkt. No. 7 at 4. He pointed out that the petitioner could raise his claims of unlawful detention, fraud and due process violations in his pending state court case, either at the trial level or on appeal. Id. In effect, Judge Jones concluded that the petitioner had not exhausted his remedies on those claims, citing Olsson v. Curran, 328 Fed.Appx. 334, 335 (7th Cir. 2009). As to the petitioner's allegations that his medical needs are not being met, Judge Jones held that that claim could not be raised through a §2241 habeas petition. Id. To the extent that the petitioner was seeking to file an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim, Judge Jones noted that the proper way to pursue such a claim is through a civil lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Id. Finally, noting that the petitioner had filed three other cases in this district in the past year, making many of the same allegations he made in this case, Judge Jones warned the petitioner that continuing to engage in frivolous litigation could subject him to sanctions, including an order barring him from filing any further cases. Id. at 5.

         IV. The Petitioner's Objection

         The petitioner noted that he has repeatedly told the courts in this district that the SCDC does not have an adequate law library, and that this deprives him of meaningful access to the courts. Dkt. No. 9 at 1. He said that while Judge Jones referred in his recommendation to various rules and cases, the petitioner cannot review those rules and cases. He doubts that Judge Jones is right that the rules governing cases under 28 U.S.C. §2254 also govern cases under §2241, but says he doesn't have the ability to research the issue. Id. He alleges that Judge Jones neglected to mention his double jeopardy claim. Id. at 2. He discusses a document that he filed on April 18, 2017 (even though he did not file this petition until 2018). Id. The petitioner says that Judge Jones “may be correct” that this habeas petition is premature, but asks, “how can you know without seeing evidence or hearing me out?” Id. at 3. He says that he is “upset” at Judge Jones's warning about frivolous filings, insisting that his prior cases were dismissed “as a direct result of obstruction and tempering by Sheboygan officials and due to the absence of a ‘decent and adequate law-library.'” Id. The petitioner objects to Judge Jones saying that his petition “plainly appears” defective, when Judge Jones has not given him a hearing or seen evidence. Id. at 4. Finally, the petitioner states that under the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ” the “Constitution of the Republic of America, ” and the Magna Carta, his petition should be granted. Id.

         V. Analysis

         A. Standard of Review Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3), the district court must review de novo- without deference to the magistrate judge-any part of the magistrate judge's recommendation to which a party properly objects. See also, 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C). The court can accept, reject, or modify (in whole or in part) the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations.

         B. G ...


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.