Rouse v. USA
Filing
7
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 3/3/2015. (tjk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JESSE ROUSE,
No. 07552-073,
)
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
WARDEN JEFFREY S. WALTON,
)
)
Respondent. )
CIVIL NO. 15-00017-DRH
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, Judge:
Petitioner Jesse Rouse, an inmate currently housed at the United States
Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 6), seeking to overturn his 1994 criminal
conviction and sentence (United States v. Rouse, Case No. 94-cr-40015 (D. S.D.
1994)). 1
This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the petition
pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States
District Courts.
Rule 4 provides that upon preliminary consideration by the
district court judge, “[i]f 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.” Rule 1(b)
1
Rouse’s amended petition (Doc. 6) lists only the criminal case number, but the
original petition (Doc. 1) indicates that he was convicted in the district of South
Dakota. Given that petitioner is proceeding pro se, the Court takes notice of the
full case name, rather than requiring further amendment of the petition.
Page 1 of 4
of those Rules gives this Court the authority to apply the rules to other habeas
corpus cases, such as this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Discussion
In United States v. Rouse, Case No. 94-cr-40015 (D. S.D. 1994), a jury
convicted Jesse Rouse (his brother and two cousins) of the aggravated sexual
abuse of five girls in his extended family, aged 20 month to seven years. Rouse
was sentenced to imprisonment for 33 years. According to the petition, Jesse
Rouse was convicted of abusing two children.
“Coercion” and the “suggestability” of the children to allege sexual abuse
were issues at trial, and on direct appeal.
A divided Eighth Circuit panel initially reversed the defendants'
convictions, United States v. Rouse, 100 F.3d 560 (8th Cir. 1996),
but after the entire Eighth Circuit granted en banc review and vacated
the panel opinion, United States v. Rouse, 107 F.3d 557 (8th Cir.
1997), the panel, on rehearing, issued a new opinion affirming the
convictions and en banc review was dismissed. United States v.
Rouse, 111 F.3d 561 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 905, 118 S.Ct.
261, 139 L.Ed.2d 188 (1997).
United States v. Rouse, 329 F.Supp.2d 1077, 1079 (D. S.D. 2004).
A subsequent motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 attacking Rouse’s
sentence was denied. See Rouse v. United States, Case No. 98-cv-4213-LLP (D.
S.D. 1999). A motion for new trial was also denied. United States v. Rouse, 329
F.Supp.2d 1077, 1079 (D. S.D. 2004). Ten years later, Rouse files the subject
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Page 2 of 4
Petitioner relies upon Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 324 (1995), and a
more recent case, McQuiggin v. Perkins, __U.S.__, 133 S.Ct. 1924 (2013). Those
cases stand for the proposition that actual innocence—a fundamental miscarriage
of justice—is grounds for overriding a procedural bar such as the statute of
limitations and granting relief.
A credible claim of actual innocence “requires
petitioner to support his allegations of constitutional error with new reliable
evidence—whether it be exculpatory scientific evidence, trustworthy eyewitness
accounts, or critical physical evidence—that was not presented at trial.” Schlup,
513 U.S. at 324. The newly presented evidence must demonstrate that “it is more
likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found petitioner guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 327.
Petitioner Rouse now presents two affidavits, purportedly signed by the two
individuals he was convicted of molesting, who are now adults. The two affidavits
are virtually identical (see Doc. 6, pp. 11-12).
Both affiants attest that Jesse
Rouse never touched, abused, sexually molested or harmed them.
Petitioner has laid the foundation for a viable actual innocence claim, and
there is insufficient information before the Court upon which to conclude that
dismissal at this preliminary stage pursuant to Rule 4 is appropriate. Therefore,
respondent Jeffrey S. Walton will be required to respond or otherwise plead.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent shall answer the petition or
otherwise plead within thirty days of the date this order is entered. This
preliminary order to respond does not, of course, preclude the Government from
Page 3 of 4
raising any objection or defense it may wish to present. Service upon the United
States Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois, 750 Missouri Avenue, East St.
Louis, Illinois, shall constitute sufficient service.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(a)(2), this
cause is referred to United States Magistrate Judge Clifford J. Proud for further
pre-trial proceedings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this entire matter be REFERRED to a
United States Magistrate Judge for disposition, as contemplated by Local Rule
72.2(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), should all the parties consent to such a
referral.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to have the record reflect that the
respondent is Warden Jeffrey S. Walton (see Doc. 6).
Petitioner is ADVISED of his continuing obligation to keep the Clerk (and
each opposing party) informed of any change in his whereabouts during the
pendency of this action. This notification shall be done in writing and not later
than seven (7) days after a transfer or other change in address occurs. Failure to
provide such notice may result in dismissal of this action. See FED. R. CIV. P.
41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 3rd day of March, 2015.
Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2015.03.03
10:03:31 -06'00'
United States District Court
Page 4 of 4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?