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. Seana

United States District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania

January 23, 2014

CLARENCE D. SCHREANE, Petitioner
v.
J. SEANA, et al., Respondents CLARENCE D. SCHREANE, Petitioner
v.
MR. CHAMBERS, et al., Respondents

Caputo Judge

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Thomas M. Blewitt United States Magistrate Judge

I. Procedural Background.

On December 23, 2013, Petitioner Clarence Schreane, an inmate at USP Lewisburg in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, filed, pro se, a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in this Court in Docket No. 3:13-CV-3009.[1] (Doc. 1). On December 31, 2013, Petitioner filed an additional Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in this Court in Docket No. 3:13-CV-3110. (Doc. 1). Petitioner paid the filing fees in both Petitions. Named as Respondents in habeas petition No. 3:13-CV-3009 are J. Seana; Renda, Disciplinary Hearing Officer; Lt. Edward; and Warden Ronnie Holt. (Doc. 1). In habeas petition No. 3:13-CV-3110 named Respondents are Mr. Chambers and the Pennsylvania Attorney General.[2] (Doc. 1). The habeas petitions have not yet been served on Respondents for a response.

In Petition No. 3:13-CV-3009 and supporting memorandum, Petitioner essentially raises a due process violation regarding a disciplinary action he received for an incident which occurred on May 16, 2010. (Docs. 1, p. 2). Petitioner notes in his Petition that he previously filed a Petition for writ of habeas corpus in 1:98-CR-061 on August 16, 2004 which was time barred. (Id.). As relief, Petitioner requests that the Court “review the surveillance videotape, for the alleged misconduct, and the due process violation that Mr. Schreane was infact prejudice by not having a fundamental fair and impartial hearing, Mr. Schreane request that this incident report be expunged, if the Court find that Mr. Schreane did not commit the prohibit act, and grant the reparative injunction, from the invidious discrimination and wrongfully accused in violation of his due process under the Fifth Amendment.” [sic] (Doc. 2, p. 10).

In the habeas petition No. 3:13-CV-3110 and supporting memorandum, Petitioner again raises a due process violation regarding a disciplinary action he received for an incident which occurred on August 5, 2011. (Docs. 2, p. 3). Petitioner states that Defendant Chambers “imposed an unlawful sanction” for a razor blade. (Doc. 1). Petitioner contends that the razor blade was not his property and there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty which took away good time credits and privileges. (Id.). As relief, Petitioner requests that “this incident report be expunged Pino v. Dalsheim, 605 F.Supp. 1305, 1319-20 (S.D.N.Y)(1985) and ‘Reparative Injunction should be granted.’” [sic] (Doc. 2, p. 9).

We now give preliminary consideration to both habeas petitions 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.[3]

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.[4] 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 three petitions for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 which were dismissed by the Court. (Docket Nos. 1:98-CR-061, 3:13-CV-01643, 3:13-CV-02478). Petitioner filed the §2241 Petition for writ of habeas corpus in 3:13-CV-3009 on December 23, 2013 and the §2241 Petition for writ of habeas corpus in 3:13-CV-3110 on December 31, 2013 in this Court. Both Petitions are Due Process challenges to disciplinary action taken against him.

III. Discussion.

A. Claims of Habeas Petition Docket No. ...


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.