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.

Mitchell v. Warden

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

March 24, 2014

D. WALLACE MITCHELL, Petitioner,
v.
CHARLES A. DANIELS, Warden, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DAVID R. HERNDON, Chief Judge

I. Introduction and Background

This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams' July 29, 2013 Report and Recommendation ("the Report") (Doc. 274). The Report recommends that the Court deny D. Wallace Mitchell's ("Mitchell") petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as moot and dismiss the case. In the alternative, the Report recommends that the Court find that petitioner committed a fraud upon the Court and dismiss with prejudice petitioner's petition as a sanction for that fraud. Mitchell filed objections to the Report (Doc. 289). The Government responded to those objections (Doc. 291) and Mitchell replied (Doc. 292). The Court ADOPTS the Report with the following modification: Mitchell's petition will be DENIED with prejudice as a sanction for fraud upon the Court and, in the alternative, DENIED as moot. Furthermore, the Court FINES petitioner Mitchell $1, 000 for his fraud on the Court. Until he pays the sum in full to the Clerk of this Court, he is barred from filing further civil suits in this Court.

On August 14, 2006, Mitchell, pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas pursuant to Section 2241 (Doc. 1). Petitioner challenges the loss of good time credit resulting from the issue of 14 disciplinary tickets. The Government responded arguing first that petitioner had not yet exhausted his state court remedies and second that petitioner was not entitled to relief (Doc. 16). Petitioner thereafter replied and filed a supplement to his reply (Doc. 10, 15). On September 28, 2009, the undersigned adopted a Report and Recommendation that this case be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Doc. 59) as petitioner had been relocated in that district. The case was subsequently transferred back to this district (Doc. 71) and the case was ultimately assigned to Magistrate Judge Williams.

The Court will not detail Judge Williams' procedural effort upon this case's return but instead, after careful review, adopts the Report's version of events (Doc. 271 at 1-4). Needless to say, Judge Williams put forth significant judicial resources in his review of this case, including an evidentiary hearing (Doc. 227). This Court also, upon thorough examination, also adopts the Report's detailing of the evidentiary hearing (Doc. 274 at 5-11).

On July 29, 2013, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Magistrate Judge Williams submitted the Report to the undersigned. The Report recommends that the Court deny Mitchell's petition for a writ of habeas corpus as moot and dismiss the case. In the alternative, the Report recommends that the Court find that petitioner committed a fraud upon the Court and dismiss with prejudice petitioner's petition as a sanction for that fraud. The Report also recommends that respondent's motion to dismiss (Doc. 239) be denied. The Report was sent to the parties with a notice informing them of their right to appeal by way of filing "objections" by August 15, 2013. Mitchell requested, and received, several extensions of time to file objections. On November 25, 2013, Mitchell filed objections to the Report (Doc. 289).

In his response, petitioner objects to the following:[1]

1. Judge Williams' finding that the petitioner does not earn any good time credit towards his life sentence pursuant to Glascoe v. United States, 358 F.3d 36 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
2. Judge Williams' determination that petitioner's parole date had remained October 18, 2012 since January 8, 2007.
3. The "perjured, inconsistent, and flawed" testimony of Augustus Faller.
4. Judge Williams' attack on petitioner's credibility.
5. Findings of Fact
a. The BOP has not been forfeiting petitioner's good time credits.
b. Petitioner's PED cannot be affected by the forfeiture of good time.
c. The forfeiture of petitioner's good time he attempted to restore can never be taken.
d. Petitioner has never requested that his educational good time credits vest.
e. Special Management Unit ("SMU").
6. Segregation as a Liberty Interest.
7. Issues with Service.
8. The Report's failure to address the errors in petitioner's Presentence Report
("PSR") raised in the petition.
9. The petitioner was "punished" for refusing to continue to be represented by Attorney Brian Trentman.
10. The Magistrate failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing regarding the alleged fraud on the Court.
11. The Magistrate is biased and erred in not finding sanctions against respondent.

Petitioner also requests an evidentiary hearing (Doc. 289 at 28).

Petitioner thereafter filed "supplemental objections" (Doc. 288)[2]. In these objections, petitioner again asserts misconduct on the part of the Government. Specifically, he argues that his Counselor did not mail his objections on the same day petitioner asked him to. He then notes that he failed to include the following objections:

12. Judge Williams refused to issue requested subpoenas for inmate witnesses with similar issues.
13. Judge Williams failed to recuse himself after stating, on the record and before any evidence was presented, that he had no reason to disbelieve the Government.

The Government responded (Doc. 291). In its response, the Government indicates that petitioner has committed another fraud on the Court. Respondent also argues that the action should be dismissed because petitioner does not have a liberty interest at stake because his 1200 good ...


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.