United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
RICHARD P. CONABOY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
pro se “Hazel-Atlas motion for fraud upon the
court” was filed by Michael Curtis Reynolds, an inmate
presently confined at the Federal Correctional Institution,
Greenville, West Virginia (FCI-Greenville). This is the
latest of multiple attempts by Reynolds which challenge the
legality of his federal criminal conviction under
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322
U.S. 238 (1944). Reynolds' submission is accompanied by
an in forma pauperis application. Named as
Respondent is the United States of America.
previously discussed by rulings in Petitioner's prior
filings, Hazel-Atlas, a decision regarding a civil
case, recognized that a court may set aside its own judgment
when the judgment was obtained by fraudulent means. See
Mumma v. High Spec, Inc., 2010 WL 4386718 (3d Cir. Nov.
upon a review of Reynold's latest action it is unclear as
to whether it is his intention that this matter proceed as a
habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. s 2241, a 28 U.S.C.
2255 motion, or a civil rights complaint. It is recognized
that the caption of this matter lists Reynolds as being a
Petitioner. Furthermore, the caption does include the docket
number of Reynolds' criminal case.
has also filed a motion seeking mandamus relief (Doc. 4) and
a motion for judicial notice (Doc. 5). For the reasons
outlined below, Reynolds will be granted leave to proceed
in forma pauperis for the sole purpose of the filing
of this matter, however, his action will be dismissed without
was convicted of multiple terrorism related criminal offenses
following a July, 2007 jury trial before the Honorable Edwin
M. Kosik of this district court. See United States v.
Reynolds, No. 3:05-CR-493. Reynolds was sentenced to a
term of imprisonment on November 6, 2007. By decision dated
March 18, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit affirmed Petitioner's conviction.
thereafter sought collateral relief via a § 2255
petition which was dismissed on the merits by decision dated
August 15, 2012. Thereafter, Reynolds next filed actions in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California which were construed as seeking § 2255 relief
and transferred to this district. Those actions were
subsequently dismissed by decision dated November 28, 2012,
because Petitioner failed to obtain authorization to file a
second or successive § 2225 action from the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals.
February 25, 2014 decision by the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals likewise observed that Petitioner has filed
unauthorized second or successive § 2255 petitions.
See United States v. Reynolds, C.A. No. 13-4195,
slip op. at 2 (3d Cir. Feb. 12, 2014).
also previously filed multiple unsuccessful § 2241
petitions with this Court challenging the legality of his
federal prosecution. See Reynolds v. Bledsoe, Civil
No. 4:CV-08-909 and Reynolds v. Kosik, Civil No.
4:CV-08-293; Reynolds v. Martinez, Civil No.
4:CV-08-2094. He has also filed civil rights actions
challenging the legality of his federal criminal prosecution.
See Reynolds v. Gurganus, et al., Civil No.
4:06-CV-1753 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 11, 2006); Reynolds v.
Kosik, et al., Civil No. 4:06-CV-2466 (M.D. Pa. Jan.18,
2007); Reynolds v. Judge Kosik, et al., Civil No.
4:07-CV-161 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2007).
pending action again challenges the legality of his federal
criminal conviction. Petitioner's motion is a lengthy
narrative which asserts multiple challenges to his