Hoskins v. Wisconsin

• Decision Date: 29 August 2022
• Docket Number: 22-cv-0874-bhl
• Parties: JAMES HOSKINS, Petitioner, v. STATE OF WISCONSIN, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin

JAMES HOSKINS, Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF WISCONSIN, Respondent.

No. 22-cv-0874-bhl

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

August 29, 2022

SCREENING ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

BRETT H. LUDWIG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On August 1, 2022, petitioner James Hoskins, a pretrial detainee currently held at the Milwaukee County Jail, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241. (ECF No. 1.) That same day, Hoskins moved for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. (ECF No. 2.) This Court now conducts a preliminary review of Hoskins' petition, pursuant to Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.^[1]

Under Rule 4, the Court must screen Hoskins' petition, and:

[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner. If the petition is not dismissed, the judge must order the respondent to file an answer, motion, or other response within a fixed time, or to take other action the judge may order

Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. During its initial review of a habeas petition, the Court examines whether the petitioner has set forth cognizable constitutional or federal law claims and tries to confirm that those claims have been exhausted in state court. See Bradley v. Fuchs,

1

No. 21-CV-49-JDP, 2021 WL 1946408, at *1 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 27, 2021) (citing Neville v. Cavanagh, 611 F.2d 673, 675 (7th Cir. 1979)).

Hoskins is charged with second-degree reckless endangering safety. (ECF No. 1 at 4.) He has been confined awaiting trial since January 19, 2022. (Id.) His petition appears to argue that he has been denied a speedy trial under Wis.Stat. Section 971.10, and thus, also denied his right to constitutional due process. (Id. at 2, 10-14.) But violations of a state's speedy trial act do not necessarily implicate the federal Constitution. See Brink v. Rouch, 677 F.Supp. 569, 571-72 (C.D. Ill. 1988). Like the petitioner in Brink, here, Hoskins has not alleged factors that might establish a federal speedy trial claim. Id. at 572. His petition contemplates only a violation of state law, and “federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991) (internal quotations omitted).

Even if Hoskins had identified a constitutional...