Source: http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20140428_0000812.MPA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-03-30 07:12:05
Document Index: 113057037

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2241', '§ 2254', '§ 2241', '§ 922', '§ 924', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2255', '§ 2241', '§2241']

| Schreane v. Chambers
Schreane v. Chambers
CLARENCE D. SCHREANE, Petitioner,v.BRIAN CHAMBERS, DHO, Respondent.
REVISED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On March 14, 2014, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in this Court.[1] (Doc. 1). Petitioner also filed a Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Named as Respondent in his habeas petition is Brian Chambers, Disciplinary Hearing Officer.[2] (Doc. 1). The habeas petition has not yet been served on Respondent for a response.
In the present habeas petition, Petitioner raises a due process violation regarding a decision for a disciplinary action he received for incident report No. 2498958 on October 10, 2013.[3] (Doc. 1, p. 2). Petitioner states that he received loss of commissary privileges for 180 days, loss of good conduct time for 27 days, loss of telephone privileges and 180 days loss of visitation. As relief, Petitioner requests that the Court "expunge the incident report because it does not satisfy a Code 206 or lesser included sanction." (Doc. 1, p. 8). Likewise, in his Civil No. 14-0246 habeas case, Petitioner challenged Incident Report # 2498958 claiming that his due process rights were violated since he was transferred to USP-Lewisburg prior to his disciplinary hearing, the Discipline Hearing Officer was prejudiced against him and did not allow him to call witnesses and preserve video footage, his staff representative failed to investigate the incident, and the evidence was insufficient to find that he committed the charged prohibited conduct. Also, the relief which Petitioner seeks in his present case is essentially the same as the relief he sought in his Civil No. 14-0246 case.
In Petitioner Schreanes Civil No. 14-0246 habeas case, we recommend that his habeas petition be dismissed with prejudice for failure to exhaust his BOP administrative remedies.
We now give preliminary consideration to Petitioner's Civil No. 14-0719 habeas petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (1977) (applicable to § 2241 petitions under Rule 1 (b)). See Patton v. Fenton, 491 F.Supp. 156, 158-59 (M.D. Pa. 1979); Romero v. Holt, 2006 WL 3437360 (M.D. Pa.); Winfield v. Martinez, 2008 WL 4541945 (M.D. Pa.); Francis v. U.S., 2009 WL 1010522 (M.D. Pa.); Rivera v. Scism, Civil No. 10-1773, M.D. Pa.[4]
On January 10, 2001, Petitioner was convicted for possession of a firearm as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and § 924(e), by a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.[5] Pursuant to that conviction, Petitioner was sentenced, on October 5, 2001, to a sentence of three hundred twenty seven (327) months incarceration and five (5) years supervised release. Subsequently, Petitioner appealed that sentence to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and they affirmed the District Court's judgment of sentence on June 11, 2003. After the Sixth Circuit Court affirmed the District Court, Petitioner filed for a Writ of Certiorari seeking to appeal to the Supreme Court, but was denied on November 5, 2003.
On November 9, 2004, Petitioner filed an initial § 2255 Motion to Vacate in regards to his sentence. The District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee denied that motion as time-barred by the statute of limitations on December 13, 2004. Petitioner filed a second § 2255 Motion to Vacate on February 19, 2009. On May 27, 2009, the District Court ordered that Petitioner's motion, as a second or successive motion to vacate, be transferred to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals since he had not received permission to file a successive §2255 motion, as required. On June 17, 2010, the Circuit Court denied Petitioner's motion to file a second § 2255 motion.
Subsequently, Petitioner attempted several times to file successive motions to vacate under § 2255, each of which was denied by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Most recently, in May 2012, Petitioner filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for relief from the District Court's October 8, 2010 judgment denying his prior Rule 60(b) motion challenging the denial of his § 2255 motion in 2004. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted this as another § 2255 motion, and denied the successive motion on January 7, 2013.
As stated, Petitioner also previously filed four petitions for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 which were dismissed by the Court. (Docket Nos. 3:13-CV-01643, 3:13-CV-02478, 3:13-CV-3009 and 3:13-CV-3110). Petitioner filed the §2241 Petition for writ of habeas corpus in 3:14-CV-0246 on February 12, 2014. Petitioner's habeas petition filed in 3:14-CV-0246 and his instant habeas petition both challenge the disciplinary action Petitioner received for Incident Report No. 2498958, and the issues raised in both petitions are basically identical. As stated, in Petitioner's 3:14-CV-0246 case, which is also currently pending before the Court, we are recommending that his habeas petition be dismissed with prejudice for failure to exhaust his BOP administrative remedies.
As discussed, in his instant Habeas Petition, Petitioner raises due process violations regarding a decision for a disciplinary action he received for incident report No. 2498958 on October 10, 2013. (Doc. 1, p. 2). Petitioner states that he received loss of commissary privileges for 180 days, loss of good conduct time for 27 days, loss of telephone privileges and 180 days loss of visitation. As relief, Petitioner requests that the Court "expunge the incident report because it does not satisfy a Code 206 or lesser included sanction." (Doc. 1, p. 8).
As noted above, the present Habeas Petition raises nearly identical claims to the claims Petitioner raised in his habeas petition filed in 3:14-CV-0246. As mentioned, in his 3:14-CV-0246 case, Petitioner asserts due process claims regarding Incident Report # 2498958 filed against him on October 1, 2013, when he was confined at USP-Allenwood, for Conduct which Disrupts, most like Making a Sexual Proposal, BOP Code 299, most like Code 206. Specifically, as mentioned, in his 3:14-CV-0246 case, Petitioner claims that his due process rights were violated since he was transferred to USP-Lewisburg prior to his disciplinary hearing, the Discipline Hearing Officer was prejudiced against him and did not allow him to call witnesses and preserve video footage, his staff representative failed to investigate the incident, and the evidence was insufficient to find that he committed the charged prohibited conduct. Further, in his ...