Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin ordered the petitioner in Case No. 25-cv-815 to pay the habeas filing fee or seek leave to proceed without prepayment, including a certified trust-account statement. The court dismissed Case No. 25-cv-883 without prejudice as duplicative and denied without prejudice the motions to appoint counsel and the motion seeking calculation of First Step Act credits and expedited release. The court also denied the request for a recommendation concerning transfer and provided deadlines for filing an amended § 2241 petition.
Holdings
- A petitioner does not need two overlapping § 2241 petitions challenging the execution or duration of the same sentence; the later petition was dismissed without prejudice as duplicative of the earlier case.
- A habeas petitioner must either pay the statutory filing fee or submit a motion to proceed without prepayment accompanied by the required affidavit and certified six-month prison trust-account statement.
- Section 2241 may be used to challenge the execution or duration of a sentence, but it is not an appropriate vehicle for challenging conditions of confinement.
- Dixon's motions to appoint counsel were properly denied without prejudice because he had not shown that he made a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel on his own.
Questions Presented
- Whether the second § 2241 petition should be dismissed as duplicative of the first petition.
- Whether Dixon could proceed with the first habeas case without paying the filing fee or submitting a proper application to proceed without prepayment and a certified six-month trust-account statement.
- Whether § 2241 is an appropriate vehicle for claims challenging the conditions of confinement rather than the execution or duration of a sentence.
- Whether Dixon's motions to appoint counsel, calculate First Step Act credits, expedite release, obtain discovery, and obtain a transfer recommendation should be granted at that stage.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (11)
- Hill v. Werlinger, 695 F.3d 644, 645 (7th Cir. 2012)(followed)
- Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 629 (7th Cir. 2000)(followed)
- Robinson v. Sherrod, 631 F.3d 839, 840-841 (7th Cir. 2011)(followed)
- Graham v. Broglin, 922 F.2d 379, 381 (7th Cir. 1991)(followed)
- Glaus v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 386 (7th Cir. 2005)(followed)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)(followed)
- Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017)(followed)
- Taylor v. Knight, 223 F. App'x 503, 504 (7th Cir. 2007)(followed)
- Giles v. Godinez, 914 F.3d 1040, 1052-1053 (7th Cir. 2019)(followed)
- Navejar v. Iyiola, 718 F.3d 692, 696 (7th Cir. 2013)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 11.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…