Hooper, Charles v. State of Wisconsin
ORDER that the complaint of plaintiff Charles Hooper is dismissed for failureto state a claim for relief under federal law. The clerk of court is directed to close this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 9/22/2011. (jef),(ps)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
CHARLES WILLIAM HOOPER,
OPINION and ORDER
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiff Charles William Hooper brings this proposed civil action against the State of
Wisconsin. He is proceeding pro se and has been allowed to proceed without prepayment of
costs and fees in this action.
The next step is determining whether Hooper’s proposed action is (1) frivolous or
malicious, (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or (3) seeks money damages
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Because Hooper
does not meet this hurdle, he will not be allowed to proceed against defendant State of
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
In addressing any pro se litigant’s complaint, the court must read the allegations of the
complaint generously. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 521 (1972). For purposes of this
screening order, the court assumes facts alleged in the complaint.
Plaintiff Hooper alleges that he was incarcerated by the State of Wisconsin for the period
of four years, one month, without a trial. He seeks monetary relief in addition to a fair trial by
the courts in the State of Wisconsin.
Plaintiff’s claim against the State of Wisconsin is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
The State of Wisconsin cannot be sued because it is entitled to immunity under the Eleventh
Amendment. A suit against a state is barred regardless whether the plaintiff is seeking damages
or injunctive relief. Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100, 102 (1984)
(citing Cory v. White, 457 U.S. 85, 91 (1982)). Therefore, plaintiff cannot proceed on this claim
against the State of Wisconsin.
Perhaps individual state actors have violated plaintiff’s
constitutional rights by imprisoning him for 49 months without a trial, but plaintiff proffers no
facts about and makes no claims against any specific person.
To the extent that Hooper may be challenging his ongoing detention by the State of
Wisconsin, his proper remedy would be to petition the state court for a writ of habeas corpus.
Once plaintiff has exhausted his state court remedies, then he may petition this federal court for
a writ under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Right now, however, Hooper has not stated a claim for relief
under federal law, so he will not be allowed to proceed in this case.
IT IS ORDERED that the complaint of plaintiff Charles Hooper is dismissed for failure
to state a claim for relief under federal law. The clerk of court is directed to close this case.
Entered this 22nd day of September, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
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?