United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING RE: PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (DOC.
NO. 1) AND PENDING MOTIONS (DOC. NOS. 3, 4, 5, 6, 11,
C. HALL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Mary Elizabeth Schipke ("Schipke") was confined at
York Correctional Institution ("York") when she
filed this habeas petition. She challenges her detention in
state prison pursuant to her arrest by Meriden police
officers and seeks numerous other forms of
relief. For the reasons set forth below, the
Petition (Doc. No. 1) is TERMINATED AS MOOT,
and each of the pending Motions (Doc Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 14)
is DISMISSED and/or TERMINATED AS
claims that she inherited the house and piece of property
located at 129 Goodwill Avenue in Meriden, Connecticut.
See Writ of Habeas Corpus Pet. to Challenge Illegal
Detention (“Petition”) (Doc. No. 1) at
On November 25, 2016, she arrived at the house and unpacked
her things. Id. At some point the next day, three
Meriden police officers walked up to the front porch and
demanded to know why Schipke was there. See id. The
officers placed Schipke under arrest for trespassing and
burglary, handcuffed her, dragged her to a police car, and
threw her in the back seat. See id. at 1-2. While
moving Schipke from the porch to the police car, the police
officers severely injured Schipke's chest. See
id. Despite her injury, the police officers brought
Schipke to the Meriden jail, where she was photographed,
fingerprinted, and placed in a freezing and filthy cell.
See id. at 2.
officers denied Schipke the ability to bail herself out of
jail and to make an uninterrupted telephone call. See
id. Schipke remained at the police station for two days.
See id. The officers denied her a medical diet and
refused to provide her with a blanket, a mattress, or a
jacket. See id. On November 28, 2016, a Superior
Court judge arraigned Schipke and set bond at $500.00.
See id. Because Schipke could not make bond, police
officials transported her to York. See id. at 3.
officials at York denied Schipke a medical diet, purified
water, and her reading glasses. See id. Schipke
seeks to be released from prison, the immediate return of her
truck, trailer, and possessions by the police, an order
prohibiting the sale or destruction of her family home in
Meriden, an order that she be provided with her medical diet
and purified water, and an order requiring that the prison
afford her law library access. See id. at 4.
addition to filing a habeas petition, Schipke has filed six
motions seeking injunctive relief. See generally
Mot. for Immediate Ct. Order for Special Medical Diet Foods
& Bottled Water for Def. under ADA/ADAAA & Other
Orders (“Food Mot.”) (Doc. No. 3); Emergency Mot.
to Stay All State Ct. Proceedings & Sale of Schipke House
(“Property Mot.”) (Doc. No. 4); Mot. for
Emergency Restraining Order Against YCI Mental Health
Dep't (“Medication Mot.”) (Doc. No. 5); Mot.
for Ct. Order for Relief from Pain of Hunger & Physical
Pain (“Private Att'y Gen. Mot.”) (Doc. No.
6); Mot. for Immediate Ct. Hr'g under Writ of Habeas
Corpus (“Hearing Mot.”) (Doc. No. 11); Mot. for
Immediate Ct. Protection from Escalating Civil Rights
Violations (“Escalating Violations Mot.”) (Doc.
No. 14). The relief sought in the Motions is substantially
identical to the relief sought in the petition for a writ of
habeas corpus, with the additional requests that the court
enjoin York employees from forcing her to take certain
medications, see Medication Mot. at 1-2, and provide
injunctive relief related to alleged Eighth Amendment
violations at York,  see Private Att'y Gen. Mot.
preliminary matter, the court has become aware that Schipke
is no longer confined at York or any other Connecticut prison
facility. Offender Information Search, Conn.
Dep't of Corr., http://www.ctinmateinfo.state.ct.us/
(last visited January 13, 2017) (generating no results after
entering Schipke's inmate number-418087-and clicking
“Search All Inmates”); Escalating Violations Mot.
at 7 (referring to release). Accordingly, the relief sought
by Schipke with regard to her release from York and the
conditions of confinement at that facility is now
relief sought by Schipke with regard to the sale of her
family home and the return of her possessions and vehicles
that were confiscated by the police are not the types of
relief that are cognizable in a habeas petition. See
Price v. Johnson, 334 U.S. 266, 291 (1948) (“The
primary purpose of a habeas corpus proceeding is to make
certain that a [person] is not unjustly imprisoned.”),
abrogation on other grounds recognized by McCleskey v.
Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 482 (1991). With regard to
Schipke's seized possessions and vehicles, the
appropriate course of action would be to file a motion for
return of seized property in state court. See Conn.
Gen. Stat. § 54-36a.
mentions that her aunt, who lived in the home located at 129
Goodwill Avenue in Meriden, Connecticut, passed away on
August 31, 2016. See Petition at 1. Schipke contends
that she is the sole heir to the property and believes that
someone is attempting to sell the house and the property to a
church that is located next door to the property. See
id. at 3. To the extent that the estate of Schipke's
aunt is in probate, this court has no subject matter
jurisdiction to entertain an action that would interfere with
a probate court's control over property that is in the
probate court's custody. See Marshall v.
Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 311-12 (2006). The probate
exception bars a federal court from doing anything to
administer a will or to “disturb or affect the
possession of property in the custody of a state
court.” Id. at 310 (quoting Markham v.
Allen, 326 U.S. 490, 494 (1946)).
reasons set forth above, the Petition (Doc. No. 1) is
TERMINATED AS MOOT. The Motions (Doc. Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 11,
14) seeking various forms of injunctive relief are TERMINATED
AS MOOT, to the extent they seek relief related to allegedly
unlawful prison conditions, and DISMISSED without prejudice,
to the extent they seek injunctive relief that is not
cognizable in ...