govinfo:USCOURTS-wiwd-3_26-cv-00184-0

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN 
  
 
JESSE SCHWORCK, 
 
Petitioner, 
v. 
 
STATE OF WISCONSIN, 
 
Respondent. 
OPINION AND ORDER 
 
26-cv-184-wmc 
 
 
Representing himself, petitioner Jesse Schworck has filed a petition for a federal writ of 
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a state court conviction from Dane County.  
Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must review and dismiss 
the petition if it plainly appears that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.  Complaints and 
petitions filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings 
drafted by lawyers.  Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).  After reviewing the petition 
under this lenient standard, the court must dismiss this action for the reasons explained below.  
OPINION 
Court records reflect that petitioner entered a guilty plea on January 6, 2025, to charges 
of maintaining a drug trafficking place in violation of Wis. Stat. § 961.42(1) in State v. Schworck, 
Dane County Circuit Court Case No. 19CF1228.1  Petitioner was sentenced to pay court costs 
and, in exchange, the State dismissed several other felony charges that had been lodged against 
him.  Petitioner filed a motion for appointment of counsel for purposes of seeking post -
 
1 Courts may take judicial notice of the state court records.  See Patrick v. City of Chicago, 81 F.4th 
730, 734 n.2 (7th Cir. 2023) (state court proceedings are a proper subject of judicial notice). 
Case: 3:26-cv-00184-wmc     Document #: 4     Filed: 06/08/26     Page 1 of 4
2 
 
conviction relief , but the circuit court denied that request due to insufficient showing of 
indigency.  Petitioner now seeks habeas corpus review, alleging that he was denied appointment 
of counsel for purposes of an appeal. 
To begin, a district court is authorized to entertain a habeas corpus petition on behalf 
of a person challenging a state court judgment only if the petitioner is “ in custody in violation 
of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States[.]”  28 U.S.C. §  2241(c)(3); 
(emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).  A conviction that results only in a fine does 
not constitute “custody” for purposes of seeking federal habeas review.  Hanson v. Circuit Ct. of 
First Judicial Circuit of Ill., 951 F.2d 404, 405 & n.1 (7th Cir. 1979).  Although petitioner insists 
that he is in custody because he cannot find housing, travel to many countries, vote, own a 
gun, serve on a jury, hold public office, obtain certain professional licenses, or obtain public 
benefits (dkt. #3), it does not appear that any of the se alleged collateral consequences are 
sufficient to meet the custody requirement.  See Stanbridge v. Scott, 791 F.3d 715, 719 (7th Cir. 
2015) (“a habeas petitioner is not ‘in custody’ pursuant to a particular  conviction unless his 
physical liberty of movement is limited in a non -negligible way, and that limitation is a direct 
consequence of the challenged conviction”) (emphasis in original); Harvey v. State of South 
Dakota, 526 F.2d 840, 841 (8th Cir. 1975) (loss of right to work in certain professions and 
carry a firearm did not satisfy “in custody” requirement); People ex rel. Sherman v. People of State 
of Ill ., No. 03-C-0385, 2006 WL 200189, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 19, 2006) (“Examples of 
‘collateral consequences’ that do not render a petitioner in custody include the inability to 
obtain a license to engage in a particular profession, own or possess firearms, or hold public 
office and the requirement to register as a sex offender.”); see also Randy Herz & James S. 
Liebman, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure  § 8.2(e) (7th ed.) (listing denial of a 
Case: 3:26-cv-00184-wmc     Document #: 4     Filed: 06/08/26     Page 2 of 4
3 
 
professional or occupational license, loss of employment opportunities, and loss of the right to 
vote or serve on a jury, and other adversities as non-custodial consequences).   
Even if petitioner satisfied the custody requirement, a federal court may not grant 
habeas relief from a state court judgment of conviction unless the petitioner “has exhausted 
the remedies available in the courts of the State.”  28 U.S.C. §  2254(b)(1)(A); O’Sullivan v. 
Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 848 (1999).  The doctrine of exhaustion serves the interests of comity 
between federal and state sovereigns by giving state appellate courts a meaningful opportunity 
to consider and correct any alleged constitutional violation.  Lieberman v. Thomas, 505 F.3d 665, 
670 (7th Cir. 2007).  Inherent in the exhaustion requirement is the habeas petitioner’s duty 
to present his federal claims to the state courts “fully and fairly.”  Malone v. Walls, 538 F.3d 
744, 753 (7th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted).  To “fairly” present a claim, a petitioner must 
raise the same operative facts and controlling legal principles before the state courts in a 
procedurally proper manner.  Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971); see also Baldwin v. 
Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004).  To “fully” present a claim, the petitioner must complete one 
round of state court review of a fairly presented claim, including seeking discretionary review 
before the state supreme court.  McAtee v. Cowan, 250 F.3d 506, 508-09 (7th Cir. 2001) (citing 
O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 845-48).   
Petitioner did not exhaust state court remedies as required because, although he filed a 
petition for a supervisory writ with the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, th at petition was denied 
as an improper “attempt to obtain review that would be available by appeal.”  (Dkt. #1 -1, at 
3.)  The Court of Appeals rejected petitioner’s arguments to the contrary, holding further that 
a supervisory writ petition was not the “proper method” to litigate his claims.  (Id.) 
Case: 3:26-cv-00184-wmc     Document #: 4     Filed: 06/08/26     Page 3 of 4
4 
 
The United States Supreme Court has long held that a federal habeas petition “should 
be dismissed if the [petitioner] has not exhausted available state remedies as to any of his 
federal claims.”  Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991) (citing Ex parte Royall, 117 
U.S. 241 (1886)).  Although petitioner represents himself, his pro se status does not qualify as 
cause to excuse his procedural default.  See Harris v. McAdory, 334 F.3d 665, 668-69 (7th Cir. 
2003) (neither a petitioner’s pro se status nor factors such as mental illness, illiteracy, and low 
intelligence qualify as an external impediment that can serve as ca use).  Because petitioner 
clearly failed to exhaust an appellate process that was available to him, his petition must be 
dismissed.   
ORDER 
IT IS ORDERED that: 
1. The federal habeas corpus petition filed by Jesse Schworck (dkt. #1) is DISMISSED 
without prejudice. 
2. Petitioner’s motion to expedite (dkt. #2) is MOOT. 
3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. 
4. The clerk of court shall enter judgment and close this case.  
 
Entered on this 8th day of June, 2026. 
BY THE COURT: 
 
      /s/ 
      ________________________________________ 
      WILLIAM M. CONLEY 
      District Judge 
Case: 3:26-cv-00184-wmc     Document #: 4     Filed: 06/08/26     Page 4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight