Goodwill v. City of Sheboygan et al
Filing
6
ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 5/24/2017 Screening Petition, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; DENYING AS MOOT the Petitioner's 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed Without Prepayment of the Filing Fee, and DISMISSING case. (cc: all counsel and copy sent to the petitioner by US Mail on 5/25/2017) (kgw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JASON GOODWILL,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 17-cv-622-pp
CITY OF SHEBOYGAN,
SHEBOYGAN COUNTY,
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
SHEBOYGAN POLICE DEPARTMENT,
SHEBOYGAN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,
Defendants.
ORDER SCREENING PETITION, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE
PETITIONER’S PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (DKT. NO. 1),
DENYING AS MOOT THE PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING THE FILING FEE (DKT. NO. 2), AND
DISMISSING CASE
______________________________________________________________________________
On May 1, 2017, petitioner Jason Goodwill filed a petition for writ of
habeas corpus in which he demanded a federal criminal grand jury
investigation. Dkt. No. 1. Although the petitioner filed an application asking the
court to allow him to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, dkt. no. 2, the
court received—on the same day it received that application—the $5.00 fee for
filing a habeas petition. The court will deny that application as moot.
The petition does not provide many facts—the opening paragraph says
that the petitioner wants the court “to inquire into the cause of constructive
custody and restraint of liberty.” Dkt. No. 1 at 1. It states that the petitioner
has been deprived of due process, that he has been falsely imprisoned, that he
1
has been denied proper car, that he has been subjected to murder threats, and
that the Sheboygan police assaulted him and tried to deprive him of evidence
on April 25, 2017. Id. at 2. Finally, the petition states, “Case 16-CF-628 is
Double Jeopardy of 13-CF-360.” As relief, the petitioner demands a federal
grand jury investigation of his allegations and evidence. Because the petitioner
has other means to seek the relief he demands, and he has not exhausted his
claims as to the criminal case in Sheboygan County Circuit Court in which he
currently is a defendant, the court will dismiss the federal petition without
prejudice.
In the “Jurisdiction” portion of his petition, the petitioner indicates that
this court has jurisdiction over his claims under 28 U.S.C. §1331 (giving
federal courts jurisdiction over civil cases arising under the Constitution or
laws of the United States); §1361 (giving district courts jurisdiction over
mandamus actions against federal officers or employees to perform duties owed
to the plaintiff); §2241 (allowing prisoners to seek habeas relief if they are “in
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws . . . of the United States”); and
§2243 (instructing courts regarding the procedures for issuing a habeas writ).
Dkt. No. 1 at 2. As relief, he demands a federal criminal grand jury
investigation. Id. at 1.
The only one of the above statutes that gives the petitioner the ability to
seek habeas relief is 28 U.S.C. §2241. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases applies to §2241 petitions. See Rule 1(b), Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases; 28 U.S.C. §2243. Rule 4 requires the district court to “promptly
2
examine”—or “screen”—the petition, and indicates that if the court concludes
that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the court “must” dismiss the petition.
Id.
The petitioner explains that he is a “People of the Republic of the United
States named America and neither in the capacity of the citizen of the United
States . . . nor a citizen of the STATE OF WISCONSIN.” Dkt. No. 1 at 1. He
alleges that, in that capacity, he has been subjected to violations of due
process, rights and liberties for the past decade, and has been falsely
imprisoned as a witness and whistle-blower. He lists several grievances he has,
such as being deprived of proper care and being subjected to murder attempts,
although he does not specify anywhere which of the defendants allegedly
committed these offenses. He also alleges that on April 25, 2017, defendants
Sheboygan police “assaulted and attempted to deprive” him of evidence. He
does not explain how or when any one of these defendants injured him, other
than to state that “Case 16-CF-628 is double jeopardy of 13-CF-360.” Dkt. No.
1 at 3. Again, the only form of relief the petitioner requests is that he demands
a federal grand jury investigation.
It is true that federal courts have “inherent supervisory power over the
grand jury.” Carlson v. United States, 837 F.3d 753, 762 (7th Cir. 2016). But
because a grand jury functions as an independent body, the court’s
supervisory role is limited. Id., citing United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 50
(1992). “Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has
generally been confined to . . . calling the grand jurors together and
3
administering their oaths of office.” Williams, 504 U.S. at 47, citing United
States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974). Courts “may not direct the
courts of a grand jury investigation . . . .” United States v. Howard, 560 F.2d
281, 284 (7th Cir. 1977). Generally it is the prosecutor and the grand jury itself
who decide “the direction and depth of investigation.” Matter of Sinadinos, 760
F.2d 167, 170 (7th Cir. 1985). The petitioner does not have a private right of
action to have someone investigated or prosecuted. That decision lies in in the
discretion of the United States Attorney or local prosecutors. See Linda R.S. v.
Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (“[A] private citizen lacks a judicially
cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”); see also
Del Marcelle v. Brown County Corp., 680 F.3d 887, 901 (7th Cir. 2012).
If the petitioner believes that someone—one of the defendants, or
someone who works for one of the defendants—has committed crimes against
him, he has a remedy available to him. He can report the alleged crime to a
federal law enforcement agency (such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation),
or can report it directly to the federal prosecutor (the United States Attorney for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin). He does not need habeas relief to do this—
he needs only to provide the F.B.I. or the U.S. Attorney with the facts that he
believes demonstrate that he has been the victim of crimes.
The petitioner also appears to believe that there is something
constitutionally, or legally, wrong with the case he referred to as “Case 16-CF628.” The Wisconsin Circuit Court Access web site—
https://wcca.wicourts.gov—shows that this is, in fact, a pending case, State v.
4
Goodwill, Sheboygan County Circuit Court Case No. 2016CF000628. The court
record events list in that case shows that a warrant issued for the defendant on
September 30, 2016—the case opened on that date. (Id. at dkt. entry 15). The
petitioner first appeared in court on April 18, 2017 (id. at dkt. entry 12). The
commissioner found probable case on that date, id., and set a cash bond of
$10,000 for his release, id. at dkt. entry 11. The court bailiff reported that the
petitioner “refused to be transported” to a hearing on April 24, 2017, id. at dkt.
entry 6; he appeared in custody on April 26, 2017, and the judge found
probable cause and bound him over for trial, id. at dkt. entry 5. The Sheboygan
County judge has scheduled a jury trial for July 26, 2017. Id. at dkt. entry 4.
The plaintiff has not filed any motions in that case.
Federal courts must abstain from interfering with pending state
proceedings to enforce a state's criminal laws if the defendant has the
opportunity to raise any possible federal claim in state court and no
exceptional circumstances exist. Olsson v. Curran, 328 Fed. Appx. 334, 335
(7th Cir. 2009); see also Sweeney v. Bartow, 612 F.3d 571, 573 (7th Cir. 2010)
(citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)). Exceptions exist for speedy trial
and double jeopardy claims where, without immediate federal intervention, the
challenge would become moot. Sweeney, 612 F.3d at 573. The Seventh Circuit
has held that for state pretrial detainees, federal habeas corpus relief generally
is available on these kinds of claims “only after the petitioner has exhausted
his state court remedies.” Olsson, 328 Fed. Appx. at 335 (affirming the
dismissal of a petition where the petitioner had not exhausted his state court
5
remedies or presented any exceptional circumstances to justify enjoining the
state court proceeding); see also Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Ct. of Ky., 410
U.S. 484, 489-92 (1973) (finding petitioner could raise his speedy trial claim
where he sought trial on a three-year-old indictment, presented his federal
constitutional claim in the state courts, and did not seek to forestall a state
prosecution).
Because the petitioner is a pretrial detainee facing pending state criminal
charges, the appropriate place for him to raise any issues regarding those
ongoing criminal proceedings is in the Sheboygan County Circuit Court. This
will allow a Wisconsin court to have the first opportunity to respond to and
resolve his claim.1 See United States v. Castor, 937 F.2d 293, 296 (7th Cir.
1991) (comity requires that pretrial “detainees exhaust all avenues of state
relief before seeking the writ”); Olsson, 328 Fed. Appx. at 335 (finding district
court properly abstained from interfering with the petitioner's state criminal
case where the petitioner did not exhaust his state court remedies on his
speedy trial claim, was not prevented from bringing his constitutional claims in
Although the petitioner says that there have been violations “over the past
decade,” he has stated that he is seeking a writ of habeas corpus and a grand
jury investigation. As far as the court can tell, the only specific factual
allegations relate to his current incarceration in Sheboygan County. Based on
his past filings in this district, the petitioner knows the difference between civil
rights actions, Goodwill v. City of Sheboygan, Case No. 12-cv-1093-rtr (E.D.
Wis. 2013), Goodwill v. Clements, Case No. 12-cv-1094-rtr (E.D. Wis. 2013),
Goodwill v. Clements, Case No. 12-cv-1095-rtr (E.D. Wis. 2013), and habeas
petitions. Goodwill v. Clements, Case No. 12-cv-1096-pjg (E.D. Wis. 2013), In
re Petition filed by Jason Goodwill, Case No. 16-mc-39-cnc (E.D. 2017). If he
wishes to bring a civil suit against people whom he believes harmed him in the
past, habeas is not the proper way to bring that suit.
1
6
state court, and failed to show that the state court did not give him an
adequate opportunity to present his constitutional claims).
Finally, the court notes that on May 22, 2017, the court received from
the petitioner a document entitled “Notice of Removal.” Dkt. No. 5. In this
document, the petitioner states that he is “removing” the criminal case pending
in Sheboygan County (and a closed criminal case from the same county) to “the
U.S.D.C. for the 20th district of Wisconsin” for good cause. Id. He cites 28
U.S.C. §§1445 and 1446 as the bases for this notice. Although the court is
dismissing the petition, and although the notice does not ask the court for any
relief, the court advises the petitioner that he cannot remove a state criminal
case to federal court.
First, there is no federal court for the “20th district” of Wisconsin. There
are two federal district courts in Wisconsin—the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (which covers cases arising in counties on
the eastern side of the state), and the United States District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin (covering counties on the western side of the
state). Second, 28 U.S.C. §1445 does not authorize removal of a criminal case
to federal court—it lists the types of civil cases that cannot be removed to
federal court. Third, 28 U.S.C. §1446 authorizes a party to remove a civil case
to federal court. The cases the petitioner references in his notice are criminal
cases. There is no statute which authorizes the removal of a state criminal
case to federal court.
7
The court DISMISSES without prejudice the petitioner’s petition for writ
of habeas corpus. Dkt. No. 1. The court DENIES as moot the petitioner’s
application for leave to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Dkt. No. 2. The
court ORDERS that this case is DISMISSED.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 24th day of May, 2017.
8
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?