Walls v. Holinka et al

Filing 20

ORDER denying 16 MOTION for Issuance of Order to Show Cause Pursuant to Article 5 of the National Constitution, 17 MOTION to Transfer Redress of Grievance(s) Pursuant to Article 1 Sec. 8 and Statutory under 28 U.S.C. 3002(15)(A), 19 MOTION to Reinstate Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; denying 18 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 10/7/2009. (eds),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN --------------------------------------------FEL IX WALLS, Petitioner, 0 9 -c v -4 3 0 -s lc 1 v. W AR D EN CAROL HOLINKA of FCI Oxford an d other ARTICLE II SWORN OFFICIAL[s] of the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, known and unknown, R espo nd ents. --------------------------------------------In an order entered September 22, 2009, I dismissed petitioner Felix Walls's petition fo r a writ of habeas corpus after concluding that he cannot bring such a petition directly u nd er Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution and he has not shown that 28 U .S.C . § 2255 was structurally inadequate (so that he could proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 , which is generally not available to attack a conviction or sentence, as petitioner seeks to do in this lawsuit). Now, petitioner has filed two "petitions to transfer to proper ORDER

ju risd ictio n " and a "petition for issuance of order to show cause pursuant to Article Five of

Although this case has been assigned to Magistrate Judge Stephen Crocker, for the purp ose of issuing this order only, I am assuming jurisdiction over this case.

1

1

th e National Constitution." In one motion, petitioner seeks to convert his case into one challengin g the validity of § 2255 on the ground that it was not properly voted as a co n stitu tio n al amendment although it abridges the Constitution (a slightly new spin on petition er's argument that § 2255 is unconstitutional). In the other two motions, petitioner seeks to transfer the case to Washington, D.C. on the ground that this court has stated that it does not have jurisdiction. Because I have ruled that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, these motions are moot. Even if they were no t, I would deny them because they are frivolous. In addition, petitioner has filed a "petition for reinstatement" of his case, properly construed as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). That m otion will be denied as well. Petitioner's only arguments in support of reconsideration are th at his conviction was unconstitutional, that I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution an d that it is unfair that he remain convicted. None of this arguments entitle him to a writ of habeas corpus. There is a statutory mechanism for pursuing such relief. Petitioner's generalized concerns of unconstitutionality and unfairness do not satisfy the statutory requ irem ents.

OR DER IT IS ORDERED that petitioner Felix Walls's two "petitions to transfer to proper

2

jurisdiction ," dkt. ##17 and 18, "petition for issuance of order to show cause pursuant to A rticle Five of the National Constitution," dkt. #16, and "petition for reinstatement of Article I, Sec. 9, clause 2 and amendment one petition," dkt. #19, are DENIED. Entered this 7t h day of October, 2009. B Y THE COURT: /s/ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ B AR B AR A B. CRABB D istrict Judge

3