Smith v. Johnson et al

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Judge Brett H Ludwig on 8/29/24 that Tyrone Davis Smith's petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 1 is DISMISSED without prejudice. Smith's motion to amend 3 is GRANTED. A certificate of appealability SHALL NOT ISSUE. (cc: all counsel and mailed to pro se party)(jad)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
TYRONE DAVIS SMITH,
v.

Petitioner,

Case No. 24-cv-988-bhl

STEVEN JOHNSON and JEREMY GLOUDEMANS,
Respondents.
______________________________________________________________________________
SCREENING ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
On August 5, 2024, Tyrone Davis Smith, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the
Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility, filed what he labeled a “Petition For A Common Law Writ
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” (ECF No. 1.) Smith paid the $5.00 filing fee the same day and his
petition is ready for screening.
SCREENING THE PETITION
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for the screening of habeas
petitions. 1 The rule provides:
If it plainly appears from 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, or
to take other action the judge may order.
Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. During its initial review of a habeas petition, the Court
examines whether the petitioner has set forth cognizable constitutional or federal law claims and
tries to confirm that those claims have been exhausted in state court.
PETITIONER’S ALLEGATIONS
In the case caption, Smith indicates that his petition is brought by the State of Wisconsin
on behalf of Smith, “his limited liability company: Justice 4 The People Legal Technician & Legal

Smith filed his petition under Section 2241, but Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases authorizes the
Court to apply those rules to Section 2241 petitions as well.

1

Research Firm,” and inmates of the Restrictive Housing Unit of the Milwaukee Secure Detention
Facility against Respondents Steven Johnson and Jeremy Gloudemans, the Warden of the
Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility and Captain of the Restrictive Housing Unit, respectively.
(Id. at 1.) In the body of the petition, Smith alleges that the Restrictive Housing Unit “is not being
operated sufficiently and accordingly to [Division of Adult Institutions] and [Wisconsin Prison
System] rules.” (Id. at 4.) Smith alleges eighteen “violations” by the Respondents along with
additional complaints in the “Background” and “Statement” portions of his petition. (Id. at 4–8.)
On August 21, 2024, Smith filed a motion to amend his complaint and add three additional similar
alleged violations. (ECF No. 3.) Smith asks the Court to “involve itself for and as a friend to the
petitioners” and “order . . . respondents to answer to claims of ill-operation of [the] facility.” (Id.
at 9.)
ANALYSIS
Smith’s allegations are not appropriate for adjudication through a habeas petition. While
Smith invokes Section 2241, that statute applies to a state prisoner who is “in custody in violation
of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Smith does
not allege that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or any federal law. He challenges
only the conditions of his confinement in a manner wholly unrelated to the duration of his
punishment. This makes habeas inappropriate. See Robinson v. Sherrod, 631 F.3d 839, 840–41
(7th Cir. 2011) (“When there isn’t even an indirect effect on duration of punishment . . . habeas
corpus is not a permissible route for challenging prison conditions.”) (citing Williams v. Wisconsin,
336 F.3d 576, 579 (7th Cir. 2003)). Moreover, Smith does not allege that the conditions of his
confinement violate his federal or constitutional rights. He complains only that the Restrictive
Housing Unit is not being run in accordance with state rules and regulations. Questions of state
law are also not appropriate for federal habeas review. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67–
68 (1991). Accordingly, Smith’s petition does not assert any claims appropriate for federal habeas
review and will be dismissed without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Tyrone Davis Smith’s petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Smith’s motion to amend, ECF No. 3, is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability SHALL NOT ISSUE.
The Court does not find that reasonable jurists could debate that the petitioner has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and that the petition should have been
resolved in a different manner. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The Clerk of
Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin on August 29, 2024.
s/ Brett H. Ludwig
BRETT H. LUDWIG
United States District Judge