Lonas, Dessie v. Greisbach, Judge et al

Filing 23

ORDER denying plaintiff Dessie Lonas's motion for reconsideration of the court's January 20, 2017 order. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 2/2/2017. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

DESSIE LONAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUDGE GRIESBACH, JUDGE BISHEL, JUDGE
ZUDMULDER, A.D.A. DANA JOHNSON, OFFICER
MARY SHARTNER, BROWN COUNTY POLICE
DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
ATTORNEY SINGH, and ATTY. KACHINSKY,

ORDER
16-cv-780-jdp

Defendants.
DESSIE LONAS,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER
16-cv-790-jdp

DANA JOHNSON,
Defendant.
DESSIE LONAS,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER
16-cv-791-jdp

STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Defendant.

Plaintiff Dessie Lonas, a Wisconsin Department of Corrections prisoner housed at the
Oshkosh Correctional Institution, filed documents styled as civil complaints in each of the
three above-captioned cases, all which concerned his 2008 Brown County conviction for
repeated sexual assault of a child. Lonas sought the vacation of his conviction and a new trial,

a declaration that the repeated-sexual-assault-of-a-child criminal statute is unconstitutional,
and criminal charges to be brought against officials involved in prosecuting him.
I dismissed all three of these cases in a January 20, 2017 order, because I could not
grant the type of relief he sought in civil rights lawsuits brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Dkt. 16 in the ’780 case. In particular, I could not issue an order vacating his conviction. And
under Seventh Circuit precedent, I would not convert his cases into a petition for writ of
habeas corpus.
Now Lonas has filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of these three cases.
He states that the district attorney, police, and Department of Corrections are withholding
evidence “so [he] could not file a habeas or motions to get back in a court of law” and he
suggests that after writing to the clerk of court about this withholding of evidence (before he
filed his lawsuits here), he was informed to file a complaint. Dkt. 19 in the ’780 case, at 1.
Lonas asks me to allow him to rewrite his cases or to tell him how to proceed with a challenge
to his conviction.
I have directed the clerk of court to place two of its responses to Lonas’s letters on the
docket of his ’780 case. Dkt. 21. The clerk’s responses show that the clerk’s office informed
Lonas that he could file a civil complaint or a habeas action, depending on the type of relief
he was seeking. Id. The clerk cannot give Lonas legal advice about which type of lawsuit to
file, so it was up to Lonas to determine which type of action was best. As I explained in the
January 20 order, a civil rights lawsuit was not the proper way to litigate his claims for
vacation of his conviction. I will deny Lonas’s motion for reconsideration because he does not
persuade me that my decision was incorrect.

2

What I said in the previous order (and what the clerk told Lonas) holds true: to
challenge his conviction, Lonas must file a postconviction motion in his state trial court or a
petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court.1 Nothing in any of Lonas’s submissions
suggests that he is being blocked from filing a postconviction motion or habeas petition. If
government officials are not allowing him access to certain evidence, that is an issue he
should raise in his postconviction motion or habeas petition. But he must take one of those
options; he cannot present this claim in the civil rights lawsuits that I have dismissed.
From the online record of Lonas’s criminal proceedings, I cannot tell which option is
right for him. He will have to make that decision himself. But I again warn Lonas that to
pursue his claims in a habeas petition under § 2254, he will have to demonstrate that his
petition is timely and that he has complied with all applicable exhaustion requirements,
meaning that he has presented his claims to the state court system before filing his federal
habeas petition.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Dessie Lonas’s motion for reconsideration of the
court’s January 20, 2017 order is DENIED.
Entered February 2, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
1

I also note that the appropriate place to file his habeas is almost certainly the District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, because that is the district in which he was sentenced
and in which he is currently incarcerated.

3