Neal v. State of Wisconsin

Filing 9

ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 3/11/2014. Respondent MUST FILE answer to Neal's habeas petition by 5/12/2014, the answer must conform to requirements of Rule 5, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. (cc: all counsel, via US mail to Quentin Neal at Racine Youthful Offenders Correctional Facility)(cb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
QUENTIN E. NEAL,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 14-C-110

ROBERT HUMPHREYS,
Warden, Racine Youthful
Offenders Correctional Facility,
Respondent.

DECISION AND ORDER

On February 3, 2014, pro se Petitioner Quentin E. Neal (“Neal”), currently
incarcerated at the Racine Youthful Offenders Correctional Facility, filed a petition
for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state conviction. Neal filed a
request to proceed without payment of the filing fee, which the Court denied by an
order issued February 14, 2014, because it concluded Neal was able to pay the $5.00
filing fee. Neal paid the filing fee by the stated deadline.
Consequently, the action is now before the Court for initial consideration
pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, which reads:
If it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any
exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to
relief in the district court, the judge shall make an order
for its summary dismissal and cause the petitioner to be
notified. Otherwise the judge shall order the respondent to
file an answer.

Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.
The Court’s initial review of habeas petitions requires determining whether the
petitioner has set forth cognizable constitutional or federal law claims and exhausted
available state remedies. Neal’s petition raises arguable constitutional claims. He has
presented his claims to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. While Neal did not further
petition the Wisconsin Supreme Court for review, any attempt to do so at this time
would be futile. Since Neal’s claims are not subject to summary dismissal, the Court
will require Respondent Robert Humphreys (“Humphreys”) to file an answer.
NOW, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE FOREGOING, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
Humphreys MUST FILE AN ANSWER to Neal’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus on or before May 12, 2014; and
The answer MUST conform to the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 11th day of March, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

__________________________
HON. RUDOLPH T. RANDA
U.S. District Judge

-2-