Maday, Jr., Stanley v. Fluke, Brent et al

Filing 8

ORDER that Stanley Maday's motion for reconsideration, dkt. 7 , is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 5/28/2020. (rks),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - STANLEY J. MADAY, JR.,
ORDER
Petitioner,
20-cv343-bbc
v.
BRENT FLUKE AND KEVIN CARR,
Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Stanley J. Maday, Jr. is a Wisconsin prisoner who is incarcerated at a prison in
South Dakota for security reasons. In a previous order, I dismissed petitioner’s petition
for a writ of habeas corpus in which he sought to be released from the Mike Durfee State
Prison where he is incarcerated.

Dkt. #5.

Petitioner alleged that the prison has not

enacted safety measures to prevent the spread of Covid-19, and that petitioner has
underlying health conditions that would make contracting the virus particularly
dangerous for him.

I explained to petitioner that his case was not a proper habeas

petition because he was not seeking release on the grounds that his conviction or
sentence was unlawful. Instead, he was raising Eighth Amendment claims that should be
brought in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Now petitioner has filed a motion for reconsideration. Dkt. #7. He contends that
courts outside of the Seventh Circuit have determined that Covid-19 presents an

1

extraordinary circumstance that might permit habeas relief to a state prisoner. Id. at 6
(citing cases).

Petitioner urges this court to adopt the reasoning in those cases and

reconsider his request for habeas relief.
I will deny petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. In contrast to the decisions
cited by petitioner, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has made it clear that an
Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim cannot be raised in a habeas
petition, because release is not an available remedy to an Eighth Amendment claim.
Glaus v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 387 (7th Cir. 2005) (“Glaus’s habeas corpus petition
would be proper if release were among the possible remedies for an Eighth Amendment
deliberate indifference claim. Unfortunately for Glaus, it is not. If an inmate established
that his medical treatment amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, the appropriate
remedy would be to call for proper treatment, or to award him damages; release from
custody is not an option.”). The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has not made
an exception to this rule for Covid-19, and this court does not have the authority to do
so.

Accordingly, petitioner cannot raise Eighth Amendment claims challenging his

conditions of confinement in a habeas petition.

2

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Stanley Maday’s motion for reconsideration, dkt. #7, is
DENIED.
Entered this 28th day of May, 2020.

BY THE COURT:
/s/
_________________________________
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

3