S.C.M. v. Trevino, Klint

Filing 4

ORDER dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 11/21/2024. (lam),(ps)

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

S.C.M.,
Petitioner,
v.

OPINION and ORDER
24-cv-611-jdp

KLINT TREVINO,
Respondent.

S.C.M.,1 proceeding without counsel, is incarcerated at Oshkosh Correctional
Institution. He seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a 2004
Trempealeau County Circuit Court order placing him in the state’s serious juvenile offender
program.
The petition is before the court for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases. Rule 4 requires the court to examine the petition and
supporting exhibits and dismiss a petition if it “plainly appears” that petitioner is not entitled
to relief. See also 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (habeas court must award writ or order respondent to show
cause why writ should not be granted, unless application makes it clear that petitioner is not
entitled to relief). I will deny the petition because this court cannot consider the validity of a
sentence that has expired.

Although S.C.M. is now an adult, he identifies himself by his initials because he seeks to
challenge a decision in a juvenile-court case that is sealed from the public. I will refer to him
by his initials in this opinion.

1

ANALYSIS
S.C.M. is currently incarcerated at Oshkosh Correctional Institution for convictions in
Marathon County Circuit Court for child enticement and use of a computer to facilitate a child
sex crime. See Marathon County Case No. 2013CF815. But S.C.M. is not challenging his
current incarceration. Instead, he challenges a 2004 order placing him in the state’s serious
juvenile offender program.
This court cannot vacate the 2004 juvenile-court order. Congress has authorized federal
courts to entertain petitions for a writ of habeas corpus only when the individual seeking the
writ is “in custody.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c) and 2254(a). From Wisconsin state-court records
and S.C.M.’s similar previous habeas petition in this court, I am aware that he is no longer
serving a juvenile-court sentence. See S.C.M. v. Trevino, No. 23-cv-558-jdp, 2023 WL 7353215,
(W.D. Wis. Oct. 17, 2023).
The United States Supreme Court has held that a petitioner is not “in custody” for
purposes of federal habeas corpus review once the challenged sentence has fully expired. Maleng
v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 492 (1989). S.C.M. states that his “adult sentence in 2015 was
exacerbated by this irregular juvenile matter.” Dkt. 1, at 4. But a prisoner cannot challenge a
current sentence on the ground that it was enhanced based on a previous sentence that has
expired. Lackawanna Cnty. Dist. Att’y v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394, 396–97 (2001). The only explicit
exception to this rule is when a defendant was not appointed counsel under Gideon v.
Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), in the original criminal case. Id. at 404. Nothing in S.C.M.’s
habeas petition suggests that this exception should apply. Therefore I must dismiss his habeas
petition.

2

Under Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must issue or
deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a petitioner. To obtain
a certificate of appealability, the applicant must make a “substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 282 (2004).
This means that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the
petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were
adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336
(2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Because I find that no reasonable jurist
would debate the outcome here, I will not issue S.C.M. a certificate of appealability. He may
seek a certificate from the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner S.C.M.’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is
DISMISSED.
2. Petitioner is DENIED a certificate of appealability. He may seek a certificate from
the court of appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22.
Entered November 21, 2024.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3