McGee v. Bartow et al
ORDER signed by Judge William C Griesbach on November 17, 2006. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition be DISMISSED as a successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). Petitioner is warned that frivolous filings or abuse of the judicial system may constitute grounds for sanctions. (cc: all counsel)(Griesbach, William)
McGee v. Bartow et al
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E A S T E R N DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MICHAEL MCGEE, Petitioner, v. BYRAN BARTOW, Respondent. Case No. 06-C-1174
Michael McGee filed this petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asserting that his confinement under Chapter 980 was imposed in violation of the Constitution. In substance, the petition is identical to the petition he filed one week earlier in case number 06-C-1151. The firstfiled petition includes the same argument relating to commitment based on a diagnosis of personality disorder. See Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (2002). It also suggests ineffective assistance of counsel. The present petition focuses on the argument that antisocial personality disorder cannot be a basis for involuntary commitment. Regardless of what the claims are, however, this petition is an improper second petition, which does not qualify under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) for filing as a second or successive petition. Even if it did qualify, the petitioner has not received permission from the court of appeals to file it. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). If petitioner inadvertently failed to include a claim in his original petition, it is not too late to seek leave to amend. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). But he may not simply file a second petition.
Page 2 of 2
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the petition be DISMISSED as a successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). Petitioner is warned that frivolous filings or abuse of the judicial system may constitute grounds for sanctions. Dated this 17th day of November, 2006.
s/ William C. Griesbach William C. Griesbach United Stated District Judge
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?