Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Schreane v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

United States District Court, Third Circuit

October 17, 2013

CLARENCE D. SCHREANE, Petitioner
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Respondents

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THOMAS M. BLEWITT, Magistrate Judge.

I. Procedural Background.

On September 27, 2013, Petitioner Clarence Schreane, an inmate at FCC Allenwood in White Deer, Pennsylvania, filed, pro se, the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in this Court.[1] (Doc. 1). Petitioner paid the filing fee. (Doc. 2). Named as Respondent in this habeas petition is the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP").[2] The habeas petition has not yet been served on Respondent for a response. In this §2241 habeas petition, Petitioner essentially raises four grounds for habeas relief asking for a nunc pro tunc designation to be sentenced to a Tennessee state prison[3]. First, he claims that his initial arrest, on December 17, 1997, was unlawful and violated his Miranda rights. Second, Petitioner asserts a constitutional violation occurred based upon an alleged lack of due process regarding the evidence used against him at trial. Third, Petitioner alleges that his custody amounts to a violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, and as such, his charges should have been dropped before trial. Fourth, Petitioner alleges so-called Brady violations, arguing that the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence at his trial. As relief, Petitioner requests that the Court issue "a nunc pro tunc designation of a state prison in Tennessee' as the place for him to serve both his 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) state and federal sentence, and to transfer him to that facility." (Doc. 1, p. 3).

We now give preliminary consideration to the 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]

As we previously recommended in Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in 3:13-cv-01643 and based on well-settled precedent, we find that Petitioner's remedy with respect to his claims is a §2255 motion, not a § 2241 habeas petition, as he has once again filed.

II. Factual Background.

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 discussed, Petitioner also previously filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in this Court in 3:13-cv-01643 which was dismissed by the Court and Petitioner is currently appealing to the Third Circuit. Petitioner filed the instant §2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus on September 27, 2013 in this Court.

III. Claims of Habeas Petition.

In his petition, Petitioner alleges four separate grounds for habeas relief. On these grounds, Petitioner asks that his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be granted. First, he claims that his initial arrest, on December 17, 1997, was unlawful and violated his Miranda rights. Second, Petitioner asserts a constitutional violation occurred based upon an alleged lack of due process regarding the evidence used against him at trial. Third, Petitioner alleges that his custody amounts to a violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, and as such, his charges should have been dropped before trial. Fourth, Petitioner alleges so-called Brady violations, arguing that the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence at his trial. As relief, Petitioner requests that the Court issue "a nunc pro tunc designation of a state prison in Tennessee' as the place for him to serve both his 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) state and federal sentence, and to transfer him to that facility." (Doc. 1, p. 3). Petitioner is incarcerated in the BOP and has a pending state case in Tennessee. Furthermore, Petitioner states:

Mr. Schreane is currently incarcerated under the authority of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, with his pending state case, Mr. Schreane is prejudice by the Federal Bureau of Prisons not providing its prisoners that have state pending cases with any relevant state case law, its fundamentally unfair, to Mr. Schreane, upon the of Tennessee denying Mr. Schreane's every attempt to seek ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.