United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING THE FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 6),
GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. NO. 13) AND
DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PAMELA PEPPER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
plaintiff, a pretrial detainee who is representing himself,
filed a complaint alleging that the defendant, Judge Kent
Hoffman, violated his civil rights. Dkt. No. 1. This decision
grants his motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 13.
Motion for Leave to Proceed without Prepayment of the Filing
Fee (Dkt. No. 2)
Prison Litigation Reform Act applies to this case because the
plaintiff was confined at the Sheboygan County Detention
Center when he filed his complaint. 28 U.S.C. §1915.
That law allows a court to give an incarcerated plaintiff the
ability to proceed with his case without prepaying the civil
case filing fee, if he meets certain conditions. One of those
conditions is that the plaintiff pay an initial partial
filing fee. 28 U.S.C. §1915(b). Once the plaintiff pays
the initial partial filing fee, the court may allow the
plaintiff to pay the balance of the $350 filing fee over
time, through deductions from his prisoner account.
January 25, 2019, the court received the plaintiff's
six-month transaction statement. Dkt. No. 9. On January 31,
2019, the court ordered that the plaintiff would not be
required to pay an initial partial filing fee. Dkt. No. 10.
The court also ordered the plaintiff to notify the court by
February 22, 2019 whether he wanted to continue with the
case. Id. The court indicated that if the plaintiff
chose to continue with the case, the court would screen his
complaint and decide whether it stated a frivolous claim
(such that he would incur a strike and possibly be barred
from filing suits in the future). Id.
February 25, 2019, the court received the plaintiff's
notification that he wanted to dismiss this case. Dkt. No.
13. Given that, the court will deny as moot his motion to
proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Dkt. No. 2.
Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 13)
motion to dismiss the case, the plaintiff first references a
petition for writ of habeas corpus he filed in April
2018. Dkt. No. 13 at 1-3. The plaintiff states that as of
February 21, 2019, Judge Pepper “refuse[d] to
reply” to his request to the clerk's office for the
status of that case.
plaintiff states that after he filed this case in October
2018, the court incorrectly treated him as a state prison
inmate by demanding a six-month “prison trust
account.” Id. at 3. The plaintiff reiterates
that he is not a prisoner, but a pretrial detainee.
Id. at 3-4.
the plaintiff states that the court incorrectly treated this
case as a civil case when it is a criminal case and argues
that under 18 U.S.C. §§4 and 2382, “felony
and treasonous acts must be reported in to some judge.”
Id. at 4. He says the court is erroneously treating
the case as a civil suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
plaintiff goes on to describe what he considers to be errors
in the court's January 31, 2019 order. Id. He
states that the court incorrectly referred to him as a
“prisoner, ” that the court incorrectly stated
that the plaintiff “filed” his trust account
statement when the court had ordered the Administrator of the
Sheboygan County Detention Center to submit the statement,
and that the court inaccurately used the word
“immediately.” Id. at 5.
plaintiff states that he provided a copy of the grievance he
filed regarding defendant Judge Kent Hoffman's
crimes. Id. Thus, he says, “Pepper,
as judge, is now informed of Hoffman's crimes.”
Id. He asserts that Judge Pepper is
“prejudiced, and providing harbor and safe haven to
domestic terrorists, and, in violation of WI Con Art VII,
and, acting without authority, ” and he says that
“as Circuit courts from lawful states are taking
some actions, and, as retalliation [sic] by
Sheboygan places me in mortal jeopardy while the Eastern
District Court denies habeas, [he sees] no point in
buying meaningless access to the court, only to be
dismissed.” Id. He clarifies that his opinion
“in no way diminishes the merit of [his] claims, nor
does it relieve judge Pepper from taking lawful actions
against judge Hoffman.” Id. at 5-6. He asserts
that Wisconsin Supreme Court rules require a judge who
receives information about another judge's misconduct to
take appropriate action and inform the appropriate authority.
Id. at 6. The plaintiff states that “the
Judicial Commission notifies me that any federal judge, whom
upon being informed of a magistrate judge's criminal
misconduct and does not take action, can themselves be
reported to the Seventh Circuit court for felony obstruction,
abetting, etc.” Id. He states that Judge
Pepper has an obligation to act regarding Judge Hoffman's
crimes, or be criminally charged, and that there is no
requirement that a civil suit be filed for this to happen.
Id. The plaintiff concludes that he dismisses this
case and that he “demands proof of immediate actions by
Pepper against Hoffman.” Id. He indicates that
if he does not receive proof of action by March 11, 2019, he
will “assume violation of judicial duty by Pepper and
proceed as the U.C. suggests.” Id.
to the grievance against defendant Hoffman that the court
received on February 4, 2019, dkt. no. 11-1, it alleges that
Judge Hoffman has engaged in misconduct in the
plaintiff's state criminal case, State v.
Goodwill, No. 2016CF628 (Sheboygan County Circuit Court)
(accessible at https://wcca.wicourts.gov). Dkt. No. 11-1 at
1-15. That case remains pending; trial is scheduled for March
20-21, 2019. The court addressed this criminal case in its
decision dismissing the plaintiff's habeas
petition. Goodwill, No. 18-cv-618-pp (E.D. Wis.).