Ardell v. Kaul

Decision Date14 May 2021
Docket NumberCase No. 19-CV-1097
PartiesKORRY L. ARDELL, Petitioner, v. JOSH KAUL, Wisconsin Attorney General, Respondent.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin
DECISION AND ORDER
1. Background

Korry Ardell insists he is an innocent man just trying to clear his name. But the state contends he is an obsessive ex-boyfriend bent on destroying the life of a woman who dumped him.

Ardell and N.T. briefly dated in 2007. State v. Ardell, 2018 WI App 28, ¶ 1, 381 Wis. 2d 471, 915 N.W.2d 455, 2018 Wisc. App. LEXIS 281 (unpublished). When N.T. broke off the relationship, Ardell continued to contact her and monitor her emails despite N.T.'s pleas to be left alone. Ardell v. Thomas, 2010 WI App 71, ¶ 2, 325 Wis. 2d 400, 786 N.W.2d 488, 2010 Wisc. App. LEXIS 253 (unpublished).

When N.T. booked a flight, Ardell fabricated communications, purportedly from a travel website, to lead N.T. to believe that her flight had been rescheduled. Id. When N.T. missed her flight and incurred additional expenses as a result, she demanded that Ardell reimburse her. Id. at ¶ 3. After Ardell showed up at N.T.'s home, ostensibly to reimburse her, a confrontation resulted, which led to each of them seeking restraining orders against the other. Id. at ¶¶ 3-4. The circuit court granted N.T.'s request in July of 2008 but denied Ardell's. Id. at ¶ 4.

Ardell appealed. The court of appeals affirmed, 2010 WI App 71, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied Ardell's petition for review, Ardell v. Thomas, 2010 WI 125, 329 Wis. 2d 372, 791 N.W.2d 381, 2010 Wisc. LEXIS 522.

Ardell violated the restraining order by sending N.T. text messages on October 30, 2008. State v. Ardell, 2012 WI App 27, ¶ 2, 339 Wis. 2d 492, 809 N.W.2d 901, 2012 Wisc. App. LEXIS 1 (unpublished). Ardell pled guilty in November of 2009. Following the plea hearing, N.T. submitted a victim impact statement referring to several emails that she believed Ardell had sent within the last two weeks to her coworkers and a newspaper, accusing her of being a drug addict as well as accusing her of what she described as "various horrible things." Id. at ¶ 5.

After he was sentenced to 90 days in jail and two years of probation, Ardell sought to withdraw his guilty plea. Id. at ¶¶ 9-10. The circuit court denied the motion, the court of appeals affirmed, 2012 WI App 27, and the Wisconsin Supreme Courtdenied review, State v. Ardell, 2012 WI 45, 340 Wis. 2d 545, 811 N.W.2d 820, 2012 Wisc. LEXIS 282.

On November 4, 2012, Ardell sent a letter to the human resources director of the school district where N.T. worked as a teacher, accusing N.T. of prostitution. (ECF No. 14-4 at 20.) Later that month Ardell submitted an open records request to N.T.'s employer, requesting N.T.'s personnel file. (ECF No. 14-4 at 21); State ex rel. Ardell v. Milwaukee Bd. of Sch. Dirs., 2014 WI App 66, ¶ 2, 354 Wis. 2d 471, 849 N.W.2d 894. Following up on his open-records request in a December 2012 letter to N.T.'s employer, Ardell again accused N.T. of prostitution. (ECF No. 14-4 at 22.) The employer denied the open records request, as did the circuit court, see Ardell v. Milwaukee Board of School Directors, Milwaukee Cnty. Cir. Ct. Case No. 2013CV002202 (available at https://wcca.wicourts.gov/), and the court of appeals, Ardell, 2014 WI App 66, ¶ 2. The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied Ardell's request for review. Ardell v. Milwaukee Bd. of Sch. Dirs., 2014 WI 122, 358 Wis. 2d 606, 855 N.W.2d 696, 2014 Wisc. LEXIS 913.

On May 23, 2013, the day the circuit court denied Ardell's petition for access to N.T.'s personnel file, Ardell allegedly called N.T. and threatened to kill her. Thomas v. Ardell, 2015 WI App 1, ¶ 2, 359 Wis. 2d 270, 857 N.W.2d 487, 2014 Wisc. App. LEXIS 932 (unpublished). N.T. also alleged that the next morning Ardell was parked outside her house. Id. at ¶ 2. These events, with the encouragement of her principal, prompted N.T. to obtain a new restraining order against Ardell. See Milwaukee Cnty. Cir. Ct. Case No.2013FA003711 (available at https://wcca.wicourts.gov/); Thomas, 2015 WI App 1, ¶ 2. After the circuit court granted the injunction, Ardell appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed. Thomas, 2015 WI App 1.

On July 4, 2014, Ardell sent four emails to N.T.'s now former principal (the principal having begun working in a new district). (ECF No. 14-4 at 12-13; 14; 15; 16.) In the first email Ardell stated that he believes the principal was N.T.'s former supervisor and asserted that N.T. "has filed two frivolous restraining orders against me in the past." (ECF No. 14-4 at 12.) He attached various documents related to the injunction hearing and requested that the principal respond to him, apparently to let him know whether she had recommended that N.T. obtain a restraining order, as N.T. testified to at a hearing.

On July 23, 2014, Ardell again emailed N.T.'s former principal. He stated that he "became aware that you are possibly still conspiring with [N.T.] on the last frivolous restraining order that she filed against me." (ECF No. 14-4 at 17.) He referred to having called and spoken with the principal about a week earlier. (ECF No. 14-4 at 17.) He threatened to have organized protests outside the school where the principal now worked and to take out a radio ad. (ECF No. 14-4 at 17.) Ardell stated that he would be filing a lawsuit against the principal and her school board. (ECF No. 14-4 at 17.) After expressing his frustration about having allegedly been the subject of false allegations that led to a restraining order, he stated, "Perhaps you being new to the Fond Du Lacarea, didn't hear about the last police officer that was killed there? Well anyways long story short from what I gather this stemmed from a woman from what I heard filed a false police report that she was assaulted by the shooter who killed these officers." (ECF No. 14-4 at 18.) He later stated, "I will not anymore deal with this at anymore [sic] at any cost. I will get this restraining order and the first restraining order investigated one way or another." (ECF No. 14-4 at 18.)

Based on Ardell's contact with N.T.'s school district and her former principal, as well as N.T.'s allegations that Ardell had contacted her and was outside her house, Ardell was charged with stalking and violating a restraining order. At trial Ardell introduced evidence that he was working far away from N.T.'s home when she alleged he was outside, as well as phone records undercutting N.T.'s allegations that Ardell had contacted her. Thus, Ardell's communications with the school district, and especially with N.T.'s former principal, became central to the state's case.

Ardell's theory was that he was merely trying to investigate N.T. and prove that she lied to obtain the restraining order against him. (See, e.g., ECF No. 12-11 at 14.) In other words, he did not act with the requisite intent to stalk her.

The jury found him guilty of both the stalking and violation of injunction charges. (ECF No. 12-18 at 8.) Following the verdict, the state moved to dismiss the charge related to violation of the injunction. (ECF No. 12-18 at 11.) The court granted the motion and entered judgment on the stalking charge. (ECF No. 12-18 at 11-15.) Thecourt sentenced Ardell to two years in prison, followed by three years of extended supervision, as well as a $7,500 fine. (ECF No. 12-1 at 2.)

Ardell unsuccessfully moved for post-conviction relief in the circuit court (ECF No. 14-7) and then appealed his conviction and the circuit court's denial of his motion for post-conviction relief (ECF No. 12-2). The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the circuit court and Ardell's conviction. (ECF No. 12-5; Ardell, 2018 WI App 28, ¶ 1.) Ardell moved the court of appeals to reconsider its decision (ECF No. 12-6), which motion it denied (ECF No. 12-7). The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied Ardell's petition for review. (ECF Nos. 12-8; 12-10.)

Ardell then filed the present petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this court. (ECF No. 1.) The briefing on the petition is complete and the matter is ready for resolution. All parties have consented to the full jurisdiction of this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF Nos. 4, 9.)

2. Applicable Law

A federal court may consider habeas relief for a petitioner in state custody "only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. §2254(a). Following the passage of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), a federal court is permitted to grant relief to a state petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 only if the state court's decision "was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, asdetermined by the Supreme Court of the United States," 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), or "resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding," 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). This is a "stiff burden." Jean-Paul v. Douma, 809 F.3d 354, 359 (7th Cir. 2015). "The state court's ruling must be 'so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.'" Id. (quoting Carter v. Douma, 796 F.3d 726, 733 (7th Cir. 2015)); see also Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102 (2011).

"Clearly established federal law" refers to a holding "of the United States Supreme Court that existed at the time of the relevant state court adjudication on the merits." Caffey v. Butler, 802 F.3d 884, 894 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Greene v. Fisher, 132 S. Ct. 38, 44 (2011); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 (2000)). "A decision is 'contrary to' federal law if the state court applied an incorrect rule—i.e., one that 'contradicts the governing law' established by the Supreme Court—or reached an outcome different from the Supreme Court's conclusion in a case with 'materially...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT