Source: https://ru.scribd.com/document/2715867/Baxter-v-Smith-et-al-Document-No-7
Timestamp: 2019-08-26 01:58:20
Document Index: 367411628

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1651', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1651', '§ 2254', '§ 1651', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 1651', '§ 1651', '§ 2254', '§ 2244', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2244', '§ 2254', '§ 2241', '§ 2254', '§ 2255', '§ 1651', '§ 1651', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915']

United States District Court Eastern District Of Wisconsin: Decision And Order
Original Title: Baxter v. Smith et al - Document No. 7
ORDER granting 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. The action is dismissed for failure to state a claim and the clerk of court shall document that this inmate has incurred a strike. cc: (all counsel) (cav) 1:2007cv00221 Wisconsin Eastern District Court
saveSave Baxter v. Smith et al - Document No. 7 For Later
Baxter v. Smith et al Doc.
Case 1:07-cv-00221-WCG Filed 03/16/2007 Page 1 of 5 Document 7
LANE BAXTER,
v. Case No. 07-C-221
Petitioner Lane Baxter, an inmate at Oshkosh Correction Institution, has filed a pro se
petition for a writ of error coram nobis under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the All Writs Act, for review of his
state incarceration proceedings. He also moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and has
tendered to the clerk a check in the amount of $32 as an initial partial payment of the filing fee
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
front, he or she can request leave to proceed in forma pauperis in order to pay the fee over time.
To proceed with an action in forma pauperis, the prisoner must complete a petition and affidavit
to proceed in forma pauperis and return it to the court with a certified copy of the prisoner's trust
Case 1:07-cv-00221-WCG Filed 03/16/2007 Page 2 of 5 Document 7
trust account for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.1
In this case, Baxter has filed a certified copy of his prison trust account statement for the six-
month period immediately preceding the filing of his complaint. He also filed the required affidavit
of indigence. Further, he has paid an initial partial filing fee of $32. Upon review of the trust
account statement and affidavit, I am satisfied that Baxter is unable to pre-pay the full statutory
filing fee in this case. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis therefore will be granted.
In no event will a prisoner be prohibited from bringing a civil action because he or she
has no assets and no means by which to pay the initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4).
Case 1:07-cv-00221-WCG Filed 03/16/2007 Page 3 of 5 Document 7
(1969). The court is obliged to give the plaintiff's pro se allegations, however inartfully pleaded,
a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
In this case, Baxter seeks to obtain federal review of his state court conviction via a petition
for a writ of coram nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Although 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the more
familiar vehicle for seeking federal review of state custody, Baxter has filed under § 1651 because
he claims the rules of § 2254 habeas relief, as enacted through the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act (AEDPA), have improperly formed “de facto government” rules and restricted his
ability to file successive petitions. Specifically, he asserts that he has been denied permission from
the Seventh Circuit to file a second or successive § 2254 petition. His only remedy, in his view, is
a writ of error under § 1651.
It is clear, however, that § 1651 is not a viable alternative to § 2254. It would make no sense
for Congress to enact, and the courts to enforce, the bar on successive habeas petitions found in
§ 2244(b) if all a prisoner had to do was cite a different statute. That would create a loophole so
large that it would eviscerate § 2254 itself, not merely with respect to the bar on successive petitions
but also to the entire habeas framework, including the procedural requirements set forth in § 2254
and § 2244(d)’s limitations period. As the Seventh Circuit has put it:
every collateral attack by a state prisoner on a final judgment of conviction
necessarily depends on § 2254. It is not possible to escape its limitations by citing
some other statute. The All Writs Act has even less to offer Owens than does
§ 2241, because writs in the nature of coram nobis are limited to former prisoners
who seek to escape the collateral civil consequences of wrongful conviction.
Case 1:07-cv-00221-WCG Filed 03/16/2007 Page 4 of 5 Document 7
Persons still in custody must look to § 2254 or § 2255 for relief; they cannot use
§ 1651(a) to escape statutory restrictions on those remedies.
Owens v. Boyd, 235 F.3d 356, 360 (7th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).
Accordingly, because § 1651 does not authorize the relief petitioner seeks, the petition will
be denied. Baxter’s motion for reimbursement of fees imposed by the state court in connection with
his underlying conviction, which was filed contemporaneously with the petition for a writ of error
coram nobis, will also be denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of
Corrections or his designee shall collect from the plaintiff's prison trust account the $318 balance
of the filing fee by collecting monthly payments from the plaintiff's prison trust account in an
amount equal to twenty percent of the preceding month's income credited to the prisoner's trust
account and forwarding payments to the clerk of the court each time the amount in the account
exceeds $10.00 in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The payments shall be clearly identified
by the case name and number assigned to this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is dismissed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
IT IS ORDERED that the clerk of court document that this inmate has brought an action
that was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a claim
Case 1:07-cv-00221-WCG Filed 03/16/2007 Page 5 of 5 Document 7
IT IS ORDERED that the clerk of court document that this inmate has incurred a "strike"
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Documents Similar To Baxter v. Smith et al - Document No. 7
The cause of popular dissatisfaction with the administration of justice
19.) GAANAN V. IAC
United States v. Levon Gause, 3rd Cir. (2013)
Province of Batangas vs. Romulo Case Digest
105 Paderes v. CA_Real Estate Mortgage