Solberg v. United States

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

Solberg v. United States

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JOHN M. SOLBERG,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 23-C-1482

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

SCREENING ORDER

Petitioner John M. Solberg is currently serving a federal sentence at Duluth Federal Prison Camp for mail fraud in violation of

18 U.S.C. §§ 1341

and 2. See Case No. 19-CR-213 (E.D. Wis.). His direct appeal is currently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. See Case No. 23-1495 (7th Cir.). This is the third

28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion Solberg has filed while the direct appeal of his criminal conviction has been pending. See Case Nos. 23-CV-570, 23-CV-925. As the court has previously explained, it is well established that, “absent extraordinary circumstances, the district court should not consider § 2255 motions while a direct appeal is pending.” United States v. Robinson,

8 F.3d 398, 405

(7th Cir. 1993). The purpose of the rule is to avoid unnecessary or potentially duplicative litigation.

Id.

In this case, Solberg has not alleged any extraordinary circumstances requiring that the court consider the § 2255 motion while the direct appeal of his criminal conviction is pending. Therefore, Solberg’s motion for relief pursuant to § 2255 is dismissed as premature. As the court does not reach the merits of Solberg’s claims, this order is not a decision on the legality of his detention for purposes of

28 U.S.C. § 2244

(a). Thus, Solberg may later file another § 2255 motion without it being a “second or successive” motion under

28 U.S.C. §§ 2244

(b) and 2255(h). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Solberg’s motion for relief pursuant to § 2255 is DENIED as premature. This action is dismissed without prejudice. Solberg may file a new

§ 2255 motion after the resolution of his pending appeal before the Seventh Circuit. A certificate of appealability is DENIED, as the court concludes that its decision is neither incorrect nor debatable among jurists of reason. See Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000). The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Dated at Green Bay, Wisconsin this 8th day of November, 2023. s/ William C. Griesbach William C. Griesbach United States District Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown