Hilsgen, Cindy v. Hove, Nancy

Filing 26

ORDER that the clerk of court is directed to set a telephonic hearing on petitioner Cindy Hilsgen's petition for writ of habeas corpus. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 4/16/2018. (jef),(ps)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN CINDY L. HILSGEN, Petitioner, v. ORDER 18-cv-102-jdp NANCY HOVE, Respondent. Cindy Hilsgen filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the amount of her bond or pretrial custody in the Pierce County Jail. In a March 6, 2018 order, I stated that, given the temporary nature of Hilsgen’s pretrial confinement, the court would schedule a telephonic hearing on the petition rather than have the parties brief the petition. See Dkt. 7. Respondent responded, stating that Hilsgen was released after the state court lowered the bond amount to $30,000 and Hilsgen posted that amount. See Dkt. 14. I denied respondent’s motion to dismiss the case, stating that Hilsgen was still “in custody” for purposes of habeas relief because she was still subject to the terms of the bond. See Dkt. 17. But because the modification of the bond and Hilsgen’s release raised the question whether Hilsgen wished to continue seeking habeas relief, I gave her a short time to confirm whether she wished to continue with the case. Id. Hilsgen has responded with an amended petition and memorandum in support, which clearly indicates her desire to continue pursuing habeas relief. Respondent need not file an answer or more briefing; I will direct the clerk of court to schedule a telephonic hearing to resolve the petition. ORDER IT IS ORDERED that the clerk of court is directed to set a telephonic hearing on petitioner Cindy Hilsgen’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. Entered April 16, 2018. BY THE COURT: /s/ ________________________________________ JAMES D. PETERSON District Judge 2

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?