IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

S.C.M.,

Petitioner, ORDER v.

23-cv-558-jdp KLINT TREVINO,

Respondent.

S.C.M., appearing pro se, is incarcerated at Oshkosh Correctional Institution. I denied S.C.M.’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

, challenging a 2007 Trempealeau County Circuit Court order adjudicating him delinquent in a juvenile proceeding, because his juvenile sentence is fully expired and a prisoner cannot challenge a current sentence on the ground that it was enhanced based on a previous sentence that has expired. Dkt. 3 (citing Lackawanna Cnty. Dist. Att’y v. Coss,

, 396–97 (2001)). S.C.M. has filed a motion for reconsideration of that decision, Dkt. 5, which I will construe as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. He argues that he can challenge his current sentence because it was enhanced by his expired juvenile sentence, citing Maleng v. Cook,

(1989). S.C.M. is incorrect about the meaning of the Maleng opinion. The petitioner in Maleng also had a prior expired state sentence that was used to enhance another state sentence, but the Court explicitly “express[ed] no view” on whether the petitioner could challenge that expired sentence.

. Rather, the Maleng decision was about whether the petitioner was “in custody” under his enhanced state sentence even though he hadn’t started that sentence yet and was currently serving a federal sentence.

at 493–94. Later, in Lackawanna, the Court ruled that a prisoner cannot challenge a current sentence on the ground that it was enhanced based on a previous sentence that has expired. 532 U.S. at 396–97. So I cannot consider S.C.M.’s challenge to his expired juvenile sentence.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that petitioner S.C.M.’s motion to alter or amend the judgment, Dkt. 5, is DENIED. Entered November 20, 2023. BY THE COURT:

/s/ ________________________________________ JAMES D. PETERSON District Judge