Ivan Scharbrough v. Joni Derdzinski, State of Wisconsin, Martha Milanowski, Deborah Hatfield, Jennifer Ann Stuber, Daniel Overbey, Judiciary Courts of the State of Wisconsin Doing Business as Vilas County Circuit Court, Neal B. Nielsen, Judiciary Courts of the State of Wisconsin Doing Business as Oneida County Circuit Court, Kenneth Gardner, Tony Evers, William Weiss, Department of Corrections, Jared Hoy, Wisconsin Supreme Court Collection Trust Fund, Chad Lynch, Nicholas A. George, and Gerard Ritter

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin conducted preliminary review of Ivan Scharbrough’s pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court concluded that the 99-page petition did not comply with Rule 2(c) because it failed to clearly identify the state-court decisions challenged, the grounds for relief, and the requested relief. The court granted Scharbrough until May 14, 2026, to file an amended petition and stated that the case would otherwise be dismissed.

Holdings

1. The petition did not comply with Rule 2(c) because it failed to clearly specify the state-court judgments challenged, the grounds for relief, the facts supporting those grounds, and the relief sought.
2. The court was required to screen the petition under Rule 4 and could dismiss it if it plainly appeared that the petitioner was not entitled to relief, but it granted an opportunity to amend because the pleading deficiencies could potentially be clarified.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the petition satisfied Rule 2(c) by identifying the specific grounds for relief and the facts supporting each ground.
2. Whether the petition could be reviewed under Rule 4 when it was unclear which state-court judgments were being challenged and what relief was sought.
3. Whether the petitioner should be granted leave to amend the deficient habeas petition rather than having the action dismissed immediately.

Disposition

other