United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
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
PAMELA PEPPER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
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.
court adopts Judge Jones's recommendation, dismisses the
case without prejudice and denies the motion for default
Allegations in the Petition
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.
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. 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.
Judge Jones's Recommendation
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.
The Petitioner's Objection
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.
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.