United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
JAKE M. WENDT, Petitioner,
LARRY WOEBBEKING, Respondent.
ORDER SCREENING PETITION (DKT. NO. 1) AND DISMISSING
PAMELA PEPPER, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
March 27, 2019, the petitioner, representing himself, filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§2241. Dkt. No. 1. He alleged that in Taylor County Case
Number 18 CF 15, the state of Wisconsin charged him with
recklessly endangering safety, possession of a firearm by a
felon, armed burglary, possession of THC and battery or
threats to law enforcement. Dkt. No. 1 at 4. His petition
challenges his pre-trial detention, arguing that (1) the
State failed to properly file a probable cause determination
form or secure an extension of “time needed to file
charges;” (2) the court improperly ordered a competency
evaluation; (3) the court did not have personal jurisdiction
because the state brought charges only against a
“fictional entity;” and (4) the court improperly
rejected his invocation of the Uniform Commercial Code.
Id. at 10-11. The petitioner has paid the $5.00
Rule 4 Screening
Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases and Civil
Local Rule 9(a)(2) of the Local Rules for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin, the court applies the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases to petitions for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2241. Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing §2254 proceedings provides:
If it plainly appears from the face of 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.
allows a habeas petition to proceed unless it is
clear that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the
district court. At the screening stage, the court expresses
no view as to the merits of any of the petitioner's
claims. Instead, the court considers whether the petitioner
has stated cognizable grounds for federal habeas
relief and whether the petitioner has exhausted his state
petition alleges that at the time the petitioner filed it, he
was being held in violation of the laws of the United States
in connection with Taylor County State Court Case 2018CF15.
Dkt. No. 1 at 4. After listing his grounds for release, the
petitioner requested the following relief:
Since law enforcement violated my 4th Amendment right while
enforcing corporate statutes and the court violated the 4th
Amendment Due Process right, I would like the charges
dismissed or discharged with prejudice. I am not property of
the United States Corporation and I have never knowingly or
voluntarily worked for the corporation to which would make me
a subject needing to abide by their statutes. We are under
Common Law and there is no Corpus Delecti in my case. I am an
Dkt. No. 1 at 12. The petitioner dated the petition March 24,
2019. Id. at 13.
court checked the Wisconsin Circuit Court Access Program,
which shows that the petitioner was arrested on January 18,
2018. State of Wisconsin v. Jake M. Wendt,
Taylor County No. 2018CF00015, available at
https://wcca.wicourts.gov/ (last visited January 9, 2020). It
indicates that in December of 2018, the state court judge
ordered the petitioner to undergo a competency examination.
Id. The state court held a competency hearing on
January 31, 2019, and found the petitioner competent to
represent himself at trial and to have freely, voluntarily
and intelligently waived his right to counsel. Id.
On March 26, 2019, the state and the petitioner notified the
court that they had reached a plea agreement. Id. On
March 27, 2019 (the same day the petitioner filed this
§2241 habeas petition and three days after the
day the petitioner dated the petition), the petitioner
entered a guilty plea to Counts One, Four and Seven.
Id. After taking the petitioner's plea, the
court imposed concurrent sentences on Counts One, Four and
Seven for a total of seven and a half years of initial
confinement followed by five years of supervised release.
Id. The court entered a judgment of conviction on
March 28, 2019. Id.
time the petitioner dated his petition-March 24, 2019-he was
in pretrial detention. “The appropriate vehicle for a
state pre-trial detainee to challenge his detention is [28
U.S.C.] §2241.” Jackson v. Clements, 796
F.3d 841, 843 (7th Cir. 2015). “Because a pre-trial
detainee is not yet ‘in custody pursuant to the
judgment of a State court,' relief under 28 U.S.C.
§2254 is not available.” Id. (citing
Jacobs v. McCaughtry, 251 F.3d 596, 597-98 (7th Cir.
2001)). If the petitioner is convicted in state court while
the federal habeas petition is pending, however,
“the claims concerning his pre-trial confinement
[become] moot.” Id. (citing Yohey v.
Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 228-29 (5th Cir. 1993)).
petition became moot the day after the court received it,
which was the day the state court accepted the
petitioner's guilty plea. The state court entered
judgment against the petitioner the next day, March 28, 2019.
Under Jackson, the petitioner's claims about his
pre-trial confinement became moot once the state court
entered the judgment of conviction; his continued detention
now stems from the state court judgment of conviction. That
means that if he wants to challenge his confinement, he must
do so under 28 U.S.C. §2254, not §2241. See
Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 633 (7th Cir. 2000)
(a petitioner must proceed under 28 U.S.C. §2254
“as long as the person is in custody pursuant to the
judgment of a state court, and not in state custody
for some other reason, such as pre-conviction ...