Hauber, Chad v. Klopp, Roger

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
CHAD L. HAUBER,
Petitioner,
v.
ROGER KLOPP,
Respondent.
OPINION and ORDER
25-cv-902-jdp
Petitioner Chad L. Hauber seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Hauber alleges that
respondent, a state court judge, denied his request to extend the time to attend a child support
contempt hearing or to attend the hearing remotely, and failed to appoint counsel to represent
him at that hearing. I take Hauber to bring claims under the Fourteenth Amendment Due
Process Clause.
I must preliminarily review the petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases, which applies to § 2241 cases. Keller v. Watson, 740 F. App’x 97, 97 (7th
Cir. 2018). Rule 4 authorizes me to dismiss a habeas petition summarily if “it plainly appears
from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled
to relief in the district court.” I will dismiss the petition without leave to amend because a
§ 2241 petition in federal court is not the proper vehicle for the relief Hauber seeks. And even
if I could reach the merits, Hauber fails to state a plausible constitutional claim.
BACKGROUND
The background is drawn from the petition and the docket sheet in Columbia County
(Wis.) Circuit Court case no. 2020FA112. Several years ago, a child support order was entered
Case: 3:25-cv-00902-jdp Document #: 3 Filed: 11/25/25 Page 1 of 5

2
in the La Crosse County (Wis.) Circuit Court against Hauber, but venue was later transferred
to the Columbia County Circuit Court. Hauber relocated from Wisconsin to Maine in May
2020, and to North Carolina in September 2023. Hauber currently resides in Lee County,
North Carolina, and he says that he has paid the support obligation to that county.
A North Carolina judge filed an order to show cause in the Columbia County Circuit
Court, which respondent Judge Klopp accepted. On May 19, 2025, Klopp scheduled an order
to show cause hearing for June 25, 2025. Hauber says that he didn’t receive notice of the
hearing until June 10, 2025. A week later, Hauber moved to reschedule the hearing, which
Klopp denied. Two days after that, Hauber asked for permission to appear by Zoom, which
Klopp also denied.
The hearing was held as scheduled. The mother of Hauber’s child, Jennifer J. Cornwell,
attended the hearing, at which she proceeded without counsel. Cornwell addressed her motion
for contempt. Counsel for the state of Wisconsin also appeared at the hearing. Klopp found
Hauber in contempt and, in late July 2025, a warrant was issued for his arrest.
ANALYSIS
The petition has two primary problems. First, Hauber’s claim is not one that can be
addressed in a § 2241 petition. Second, even if I could consider Hauber’s claims for relief, they
are facially implausible.
A. Improper § 2241 petition
Federal courts may hear a § 2241 petition “only where the individual seeking the writ
is ‘in custody.’” Virsnieks v. Smith, 521 F.3d 707, 717 (7th Cir. 2008); see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c). “Historically, federal courts interpreted the ‘in custody’ requirement strictly; they
Case: 3:25-cv-00902-jdp Document #: 3 Filed: 11/25/25 Page 2 of 5

3
required that an individual be in the state’s physical custody at the time that he or she filed
the habeas petition.” Id. Courts have expanded the definition of “in custody” beyond strict
physical custody, but petitioners still at least must establish that they face significant restraints
on their liberty not shared by the general public. See id.; see also Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S.
236, 243 (1963).
A judicial action, like an arrest warrant, that requires an individual’s appearance in court
and subjects him to the possibility of detention doesn’t meet § 2241’s “in custody”
requirement. See U. S. ex rel. Meyer v. Weil, 458 F.2d 1068, 1071 (7th Cir. 1972); Elliott v.
Cochise Cnty., 212 F. App’x 677, 678 (9th Cir. 2006); Fernos-Lopez v. Figarella Lopez,
929 F.2d 20, 24 (1st Cir. 1991). Nor do orders of restitution or fines satisfy the “in custody”
requirement. Virsnieks, 521 F.3d at 718. Along similar lines, a civil judgment requiring an
individual to pay child support fails to meet the “in custody” requirement. See Sevier v. Turner,
742 F.2d 262, 269 (6th Cir. 1984).
Hauber alleges that he’s subject to an arrest warrant based on respondent’s child support
contempt order. But Hauber has yet to be taken into physical custody and he faces only the
possibility of detention, so he hasn’t met the “in custody” requirement. Nor does Hauber’s
obligation to pay child support meet that requirement. Hauber has improperly filed the petition
under § 2241.
B. The merits of Hauber’s due process claims
I take Hauber to bring two due process claims. The first is a procedural due process
claim based on Hauber’s allegations that respondent denied him a meaningful opportunity to
participate in the order to show cause hearing. The second is a due process claim based on
respondent’s failure to appoint counsel to represent Hauber at that hearing.
Case: 3:25-cv-00902-jdp Document #: 3 Filed: 11/25/25 Page 3 of 5

4
1. 	Procedural due process
To state a procedural due process claim, Hauber must plausibly allege that he was
denied a protected liberty interest without adequate process. See Brown v. City of Mich. City,
Ind., 462 F.3d 720, 728 (7th Cir. 2006). “The cornerstone of due process is notice and the
opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Knutson v. Vill. of
Lakemoor, 932 F.3d 572, 576 (7th Cir. 2019).
Hauber acknowledges that he received notice of the June 25 order to show cause hearing
15 days before it was held. But Hauber contends that he didn’t receive a meaningful
opportunity to contest Cornwell’s motion for contempt because it was unreasonable to expect
him to travel from North Carolina to Wisconsin on 15 days’ notice. But 15 days is enough
time to travel that distance. Hauber also says that he had to arrange to take time off work and
that the trip would be expensive. But Hauber hasn’t substantiated these vague statements, and
§ 2241 petitions “must meet heightened pleading requirements.” Compare McFarland v. Scott,
512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994), with Rule 4, Section 2254 Rules. More fundamentally, Hauber at
most describes inconveniences, not major obstacles to attending the contempt hearing. Also,
Hauber spent the 15-day period challenging respondent’s order that he appear in person
instead of arranging for travel. Hauber hasn’t plausibly alleged that respondent denied him a
meaningful opportunity to contest the civil contempt order.
2. 	Denial of counsel
Hauber contends that he had a right to be represented by counsel at the order to show
cause hearing. Hauber relies on Turner v. Rogers, 564 U.S. 431 (2011). But Turner held that
“the Due Process Clause does not automatically require the provision of counsel at civil
contempt proceedings to an indigent individual who is subject to a child support order, even if
Case: 3:25-cv-00902-jdp Document #: 3 Filed: 11/25/25 Page 4 of 5

5
that individual faces incarceration.” Id. at 448 (emphases added). To state a claim, at a
minimum, Hauber would have to plausibly allege that he’s indigent. See id. But Hauber alleges
that he’s employed, that he’s making support payments, that he’s considered hiring an
attorney, and that he’s an “average American[.]” Dkt. 1 at 3. These allegations don’t plausibly
suggest that Hauber is indigent. I will not allow Hauber to proceed on his claim based on the
denial of counsel.
For the reasons explained above, I will dismiss the petition without leave to amend.
Hauber may challenge his child support contempt order or seek the appointment of counsel in
the proper forum, which is state court.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	Petitioner Chad L. Hauber’s habeas petition, Dkt. 1, is DISMISSED without leave
to amend.
2. 	The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment and close the case.
Entered November 24, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00902-jdp Document #: 3 Filed: 11/25/25 Page 5 of 5