United States District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania
CLARENCE D. SCHREANE, Petitioner
M. RENDA, Respondent CLARENCE D. SCHREANE, Petitioner
JEFF THOMAS, Respondent
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Thomas M. Blewitt United States Magistrate Judge
I. Procedural Background.
On June 17, 2014, 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. 3:14-CV-1165. (Doc. 1). On June 27, 2014, Petitioner filed an additional Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in this Court in Docket No. 3:14-CV-1243. (Doc. 1). Petitioner filed Motions to proceed in forma pauperis in both Petitions. (Docs. 2). We will grant Petitioner‘s in forma pauperis Motions solely for the purpose of filing these actions. We do so since we find that Petitioner has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies in both petitions. Named as Respondent in habeas petition No. 3:14-CV-1165 is M. Renda; Disciplinary Hearing Officer. (Doc. 1). In habeas petition No. 3:14-CV-1243, named Respondent is Jeff Thomas; Warden at USP Lewisburg. (Doc. 1). The habeas petitions have not yet been served on Respondents for a response.
In Petition No. 3:14-CV-1165, Petitioner essentially raises a due process violation regarding a disciplinary action he received for an incident. (Docs. 1, p. 2). Petitioner did not fully complete the form habeas petition, thus it is unknown when the incident occurred. (Id.). Petitioner notes that the incident report number is 201694, but he does not provide a copy of the incident report for review. (Id.). It appears Petitioner is challenging a decision from a June 10, 2010 DHO hearing in which the imposed action was “Dis. GCT/Loss Phone, for both incident reports good time credits phone, the body of the incident reports (2016194).” [sic] (Id.). As relief, Petitioner requests the Court grant “the appropriate relief due to the infestation of due process, that was violated, this incident should be expunged from Mr. Schreane sentry file.” (Id.).
In the habeas petition No. 3:14-CV-1243, Petitioner again raises a due process violation regarding a disciplinary action he received for an incident. (Docs. 1, p. 2). Again, Petitioner did not fully complete the form habeas petition. (Id.). Petitioner notes that the incident report number is 2119219, but he does not provide a copy of the incident report for review. (Id.). It appears Petitioner is challenging a decision from a February 16, 2011 DHO hearing in which the imposed action was “Dis. GCT/27 days/cs ds/30 days/cs lp visit/180 days/cs 27 days GCT.”, for both incident reports good time credits phone, the body of the incident reports (2016194).” [sic] (Id.). As relief, Petitioner requests that the Court “[r]equest the surveillance video on 2-1-11 at 6:35 am, Coleman, Florida, Unit I, cell 210, due to the violation of Mr. Schreane Procedural Due Process violation he’s requesting the Court to dismiss the incident report, for the fundamental right of Mr. Schreane being violated, reparative injunction.” [sic] (Id., 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.
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. 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 regard 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 six additional petitions for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Court. (Civil Docket Nos. 13-1643, 13-2478, 13-3009, 13-3110, 14-246 (open) and 14-719, all filed in M.D. Pa.). We note that Plaintiff Schreane has filed at least three prior civil rights actions with this Court, namely, Civil Nos. 10-1765, 11-613, and 13-1057(open), M.D. Pa. Petitioner filed the §2241 Petition for writ of habeas corpus in 3:14-CV-1165 on June 17, 2014 and the §2241 Petition for writ of habeas corpus in 3:14-CV-3110 on June 27, 2014 in this Court. Both Petitions are Due Process challenges to disciplinary action taken against him.
A. Claims of Habeas Petition Docket No. ...