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.

Wall v. Holt

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

December 1, 2014

MITCHELL WALL, Petitioner,
v.
RONNIE HOLT, Respondent

Mitchell Wall, Petitioner, Pro se, White Deer, PA.

For Warden Ronnie Holt, Respondent: G. Thiel, U.S. Attorney's Office, Scranton, PA; Margaret D McGaughey, U.S. Attorney's Office, Portland, ME; Mark Morrison, U.S. Attorney's Office - Prisoner, Harrisburg, PA.

MEMORANDUM

Edwin M. Kosik, United States District Judge.

Before the court is a Report and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on April 15, 2013 (Doc. 21). For the reasons which follow, we will adopt the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and we will dismiss Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner, Mitchell Wall, an inmate confined at United States Penitentiary-Allenwood, White Deer, Pennsylvania, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 27, 2011. (Doc. 1)[1]. In his Petition, Petitioner challenges his convictions for drug related offenses in the United States District Court for the District of Maine. On June 20, 2012, the Respondent filed a Response to the petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 17). On July 16, 2012, Petitioner filed a Traverse (Doc. 20). On April 15, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21), wherein he recommended that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed or transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Maine as a second or successive Motion to Vacate Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

On April 24, 2013, Petitioner filed a Motion for a 60-day extension of time to file Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22), which was granted by the court (Doc. 23). On June 14, 2013, Petitioner filed a Motion to Stay the Petition (Doc. 24), asserting that a case pending before the United States Supreme Court involved the issues presented in his Petition[2]. On June 17, 2013, this Court granted Petitioner's motion to Stay (Doc. 25). On November 20, 2013, Petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time of sixty (60) days to file Objections to the Report and Recommendation following the Supreme Court's decision (Doc. 26). The motion was granted on November 21, 2013 (Doc. 27).

On February 7, 2014, this court lifted the stay and Petitioner was allowed sixty (60) days in which to file Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 29). On April 4, 2014, Petitioner was allowed an additional 45 days in which to file Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 31).

On May 12, 2014, petitioner filed a " Supplemental Supreme Court Authority in Light of Burrage v. United States. As It Effects The Proposed Finding of the Magistrate Judge's Report" (Doc. 32, p. 5)[3]. A Brief in Opposition was filed on September 3, 2014 (Doc. 39). Petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief (Doc. 40), Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 41), and Motion for the Court to have Respondents Supply Case Law, Medical Examiner and Toxicologist Testimony and Docket Sheet (Doc. 42).

DISCUSSION

When objections are filed to a Report and Recommendation of a Magistrate Judge, we must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Sample v. Diecks. 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n.3 (3d Cir. 1989). In doing so, we may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.3. Although our review is de novo, we are permitted by statute to rely upon the Magistrate Judge's proposed recommendations to the extent we, in the exercise of sound discretion, deem proper. United States v. Raddatz. 447 U.S. 667, 676, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980); Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984).

As we indicated above, Petitioner has a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 pending before this court. In the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 21), the Magistrate Judge sets forth Petitioner's extensive history in the District Court of Maine and the First Circuit Court of Appeals, including the direct history, motions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and applications to file a second or successive petition.[4] The Magistrate Judge then discusses the law applicable to filing a motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and the exceptional circumstance where a Petitioner is permitted to pursue relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in lieu of a motion under § 2255. As to the exception, the Magistrate Judge stated:

This general rule admits of only one, narrowly-tailored, exception. A defendant is permitted to pursue relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in lieu of a motion under § 2255, only where he shows that the remedy under § 2255 would be " inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e); see also United States v. Brooks, 230 F.3d 643, 647 (3d Cir. 2000) (recognizing availability of § 2241 in cases where petitioners have no other means of having claims heard). This exception is narrowly tailored. The inadequacy or ineffectiveness must be " a limitation of scope or procedure . . . prevent[ing] a § 2255 proceeding from affording . . . a full hearing and adjudication of [a] wrongful detention claim." Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2002) (citing Cradle v. United States, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002) (per curiam)). " It is the inefficacy of the remedy, not the personal inability to use it, that is determinative." Cradle, 290 F.3d at 538-39 (citing Garris v. Lindsay, 794 F.2d 722, 727, 254 U.S.App.D.C. 13 (D.C. Cir. 1986)). Accordingly, " [s]ection 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective merely because the sentencing court does not grant relief, the one-year statute of limitations has expired, or the petitioner is unable to meet the stringent gatekeeping ...


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.