United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
REGGIE L. McCOY, Petitioner
WARDEN J. BALTAZAR, Respondent
RICHARD CAPUTO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
April 18, 2017, the Petitioner, Reggie L. McCoy, filed a
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. In his Petition, Mr. McCoy claims his actual
innocence, conviction of a nonexistent crime, and a defective
sentence enhancement based on the following Supreme Court
rulings: Burrage v. United States, __
U.S.__, 134 S.Ct. 881, 187 L.Ed.2d 715 (2014),  Rosemond v.
United States, U.S., 134 S.Ct. 1240, 188 L.Ed.2d 248
(2014),  and McFadden v. United States, __
U.S.__, 135 S.Ct. 2298, 192 L.Ed.2d 260 (2015).
the Court's preliminary review of the Petition, and Mr.
McCoy's supplements, Petitioner will be ordered to
demonstrate why his Petition should not be dismissed as the
claims raised are redundant to other § 2241 petitions he
has filed or the issues presented could have been raised in
his earlier § 2241 petition.
Legal Standard for Second or Successive § 2241
amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a)
No circuit or district judge shall be required to entertain
an application for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into
the detention of a person pursuant to a judgment of a court
of the United States if it appears that the legality of such
detention has been determined by a judge or court of the
United States on a prior application for a writ of habeas
corpus, except as provided in section 2255.
U.S.C. § 2244(a). As such, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that a district court
may dismiss a successive § 2241 petition as an abuse of
the writ pursuant to § 2244(a) “where the issues
raised had been, or could have been, decided in a
prisoner's previous habeas action in another district
court.” Henderson v. Bledsoe, 396 Fed.Appx.
906, 907 - 08 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Queen v. Miner,
530 F.3d 253, 255 (3d Cir.2008)); see Donelson v.
Loretto, 566 Fed.Appx. 111, 112 & n.2 (3d Cir. 2014)
(applying the “abuse of the writ” doctrine to a
successive § 2241 petition); Reyes-Vasquez v.
Scism, 514 Fed.Appx. 133, 136 (3d Cir. 2013).
1, 1991, the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida sentenced Mr. McCoy to two consecutive
life sentences after he was found guilty of conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine
base, possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more
of cocaine base, and aiding and abetting. His conviction was
affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit on November 15, 1994.
See United States v. Smith, 41 F.3d 667 (Table)
(11th Cir. 1994). The Supreme Court denied certiorari on
March 27, 1995. McCoy v. United States, 514 U.S.
1041, 115 S.Ct. 1411, 131 L.Ed.2d 296 (1995).
October 1995, McCoy filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion with
the sentencing court. That court denied the motion, and in
October 1998, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Since then,
McCoy has filed numerous collateral attacks on his conviction
and sentence and has repeatedly requested, and been denied,
permission by the Eleventh Circuit to file a successive
§ 2255 motion. The most recent denial was issued on
November 28, 2016. See In Re: Reginald L. McCoy, No.
16-16873-J (11th Cir. Nov. 28, 2016). Mr. McCoy sought relief
based on, inter alia, Burrage, supra.
McCoy has also filed multiple § 2241 petitions in this
Court as well as across the county, depending on his
placement by the Bureau of Prisons. Of significance here, the
Court notes that Mr. McCoy currently has a § 2241
petition pending before the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Kentucky. See McCoy v.
Kizziah, 7:16-cv-0247-KKC (E.D. Ky.). That petition was
filed prior to his § 2241 Petition in this Court and is
Mr. McCoy will be directed to show cause why his present
Petition is not ...