Dennis B. Hassel v. Warden Chase

• Court: District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
• Decided: March 19, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00550
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

DENNIS B. HASSEL,

Petitioner, OPINION AND ORDER v. 25-cv-550-wmc WARDEN CHASE,

Respondent.

Petitioner Dennis B. Hassel, who is representing himself while incarcerated at Redgranite Correctional Institution, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state-court conviction for first-degree intentional homicide in Dane County Case No. 2015CF2352. In one ground for relief, Hassel claims he was denied effective assistance of counsel on appeal because his appellate attorney allegedly knew the homicide victim and, therefore, had a conflict of interest. (Dkt. #1, at 5.) The petition is before the court for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, which requires the court to examine and dismiss the petition if it “plainly appears” that petitioner is not entitled to relief. After considering all of the pleadings and Hassel’s litigation history, the court must dismiss the petition because Hassel previously brought a habeas petition challenging the same conviction in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, which denied relief on the merits.1 See Hassel v. Radtke, No. 22-cv- 526 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 5, 2023) (Dkt. #20).

1 When asked in the form petition whether he had filed “any type of petition, application, or motion in federal court” regarding the challenged petition, Hassel falsely checked the box marked “No.” (Dkt. #1, at 12 ¶ 14.) OPINION Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), a petitioner may not file a second or successive application for habeas relief in the district court unless he first seeks and obtains an order

from the appropriate court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider the application. A second or successive petition is one in which the prisoner is challenging the same conviction that he challenged in a previous petition that was decided on the merits. See Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320, 331 (2010) (petition is successive if it challenges state-court judgment that was challenged previously, but it is not successive if it challenges a new judgment entered after resentencing).

Because the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied relief and dismissed Hassel’s prior petition on the merits, his pending petition is successive and he has not presented any authorization from the Seventh Circuit. Absent approval from that court, this court has no authority to consider the petition and must dismiss it. See Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996) (“A district court must dismiss a second or successive petition, without awaiting any response from the government, unless the court of appeals

has given approval for its filing.”). Finally, because reasonable jurists would not debate whether this petition qualifies as second or successive, the court will not issue a certificate of appealability. See Miller El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (to obtain a certificate, a habeas petitioner must show that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition

should have been resolved in a different manner”). ORDER IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Dennis B. Hassel’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice as an unauthorized second or successive petition. 2. Petitioner is DENIED a certificate of appealability. 3. The clerk of court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Entered this 19th day of March, 2026. BY THE COURT:

/s/ __________________________________ WILLIAM M. CONLEY District Judge