Brum v. United States of America

Filing 4

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 6/25/2018: DENYING 1 Petitioner's Motion to Vacate His Conviction Pursuant to Section 2255 and DISMISSING CASE for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Petitioner is FINED in th e amount of $500.00. Until Petitioner pays that fine in full, the Clerk of the Court of this District is DIRECTED to return unfiled any papers submitted by Petitioner attacking his current criminal conviction, including future collateral attacks. Petitioner is also BARRED from filing further civil suits in this District until the fine is paid. See Order. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Michael Henry Brum)(jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MICHAEL HENRY BRUM,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Case No. 18-CV-776-JPS-JPS

ORDER

Respondent.
In 1998, Petitioner was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, crossing
state lines with intent to commit murder. United States v. Michael Henry
Brum, 98-CR-165-RTR (E.D. Wis.). Since judgment was entered against him,
Petitioner has filed no less than five motions and other actions seeking relief
from his conviction and sentence. These filings, spanning from 2001 to 2009,
are detailed in an order of the late District Judge Rudolph T. Randa wherein
he dismissed the last two of those motions. Michael Henry Brum v. United
States, 09-CV-326-RTR (E.D. Wis.), (Docket #2).
Judge Randa’s March 25, 2009 order addressed Petitioner’s motions
“for abatement of his case nunc pro tunc” and to dismiss the criminal case
for alleged grand jury malfeasance. Id. Judge Randa explained to Petitioner
that no matter what he called his motions, if they challenged his conviction
or sentence, they must be characterized as motions brought pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255. Id.; Jackson v. United States, 463 F.3d 635, 639–40 (7th Cir. 2006).
Section 2255 provides that a federal prisoner cannot file a second or
successive motion to vacate his sentence without authorization from the
court of appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Judge Randa dismissed both of
Petitioner’s motions because they were successive to those he had filed

previously, and Petitioner had not secured the Seventh Circuit’s permission
to file them. 09-CV-326-RTR, (Docket #2).
Nothing else was heard from Petitioner until May 22, 2018, when he
filed the instant action. The opening filing is termed a “petition pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) for emergency relief from void
judgment.” (Docket #1). The rambling, incoherent document generally asks
that the Court vacate his convictions and sentence for a lack of jurisdiction.1
Id. He further accuses Judge Randa and the prosecutors of misconduct for
knowingly concealing the absence of jurisdiction. Id.
Petitioner’s current filing is, like the others before it, nothing more
than a creatively-titled request to vacate his sentence and must therefore be
characterized as a Section 2255 motion. Jackson, 463 F.3d at 639–40, Melton
v. United States, 359 F.3d 855, 857–58 (7th Cir. 2004) (recharacterizing a
successive collateral motion in the sentencing court as a Section 2255 motion
is permissible). Once properly construed as a Section 2255 motion, this
action must be dismissed because it is successive and is not authorized by
the Court of Appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).
Judge Randa warned Petitioner that his repeated frivolous filings
may earn him sanctions in the future. 09-CV-326-RTR, (Docket #2).
Petitioner’s latest filing demonstrates that he did not take that admonition
to heart. The Court cannot continue to waste its time addressing Petitioner’s
fanciful musings about the validity of his conviction. It must, therefore,

In his 2009 filings, Petitioner argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction to
hear his criminal case. His imaginative theory was that 18 U.S.C. § 3231, which
confers exclusive jurisdiction over federal criminal cases to district courts, was not
properly passed by Congress in 1947, and so never became law. His instant
petition presents precisely the same contention. As explained below, the Court
does not reach the purported merits of this claim.
1

Page 2 of 3

sanction Petitioner in the amount of $500.00. Until he pays that sanction, the
Clerk of the Court in this District shall return, unfiled, any papers submitted
by Petitioner attacking his current criminal conviction, including future
collateral attacks. Simpson v. Eckstein, Nos. 16-3436, 16-3630, 17-1476, 2017
WL 3948451, at *1 (7th Cir. Mar. 30, 2017); Montgomery v. Davis, 362 F.3d
956, 957–58 (7th Cir. 2004). Petitioner will also be barred from filing any
further civil suits in this District until the sanction is paid. Id.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to vacate his conviction
pursuant to Section 2255 (Docket #1) be and the same is hereby DENIED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be and the same is
hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h);
and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is fined in the amount
of $500.00. Until he pays that fine in full, the Clerk of the Court of this
District is directed to return unfiled any papers submitted by Petitioner
attacking his current criminal conviction, including future collateral
attacks. Petitioner is also barred from filing further civil suits in this District
until the fine is paid.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 25th day of June, 2018.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3