Hassel, Dennis v. Chase

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.)
Case: 3:25-cv-00550-wmc Document #: 4 Filed: 03/19/26 Page 1 of 3

2
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”).
Case: 3:25-cv-00550-wmc Document #: 4 Filed: 03/19/26 Page 2 of 3

3
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
Case: 3:25-cv-00550-wmc Document #: 4 Filed: 03/19/26 Page 3 of 3