Harris v. Haufimann

Filing 7

ORDER granting 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The petition is DISMISSED and a certificate of appealability is DENIED. (cc: all counsel) (Griesbach, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

DONTAE SLATER HARRIS,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 15-C-182

MICHAEL HAUFIMANN,
Respondent.

SCREENING ORDER

On February 17, 2015, Dontae Harris filed this petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
asserting that his detention as a pretrial detainee was imposed in violation of the Constitution. He
is currently incarcerated at Milwaukee County House of Correction.
I must give the case prompt initial consideration pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
§ 2254 Cases (which also apply to § 2241 cases), which reads:
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 . . . .
Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. During my initial review of habeas petitions, I look to see
whether the petitioner has set forth cognizable constitutional or federal law claims and exhausted
available state remedies.
Petitioner asserts that the criminal complaint against him is defective because the allegations
of the victims did not match the facts. He also alleges he was misidentified as a robbery suspect,

wrongly singled out by police officers. Under the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401
U.S. 37 (1971), a federal court should not interfere with pending state judicial proceedings. See
Gakuba v. O'Brien, 711 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 2013); Brunken v. Lance, 807 F.2d 1325, 1330 (7th
Cir.1986). Federal courts must abstain from enjoining such proceedings when they are “(1) judicial
in nature, (2) implicate important state interests, and (3) offer an adequate opportunity for review
of constitutional claims, (4) so long as no extraordinary circumstances exist which would make
abstention inappropriate.” Green v. Benden, 281 F.3d 661, 666 (7th Cir. 2002).
Here, this court will abstain from interfering in the ongoing state proceedings. Petitioner
is entitled to raise constitutional and factual issues in those proceedings, and on appeal as well, and
he alleges no extraordinary circumstances.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that this petition is summarily dismissed pursuant to Rule
4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.
The certificate of appealability may issue only if the applicant makes a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The standard for making a
“substantial showing” is whether “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree
that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were
adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)).

2

Here, I do not believe reasonable jurists could debate whether relief is warranted here. A
certificate of appealability is therefore DENIED.
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED, meaning the filing fee is waived.
SO ORDERED this 1st day of June, 2015.

/s William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge
United States District Court

3