United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge.
Petitioner Jack Wade Warren, who is an inmate in the United States Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois ("USP-Marion"), brings this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Warren is currently housed in the Communications Management Unit ("CMU") at USP-Marion. In the petition, he generally challenges the creation of the CMU, his placement in the CMU, and the systematic screening of his communications, among other things. More specifically, Warren claims that prison officials committed a federal crime by intercepting communications from him that relate to his federal tax obligation. Warren now seeks an order enjoining this allegedly criminal conduct, returning certain documents to him, and transferring him out of the CMU.
This matter is now before the Court for preliminary review of the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States District Courts. Rule 4 provides that upon preliminary consideration by the district court judge, "[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner." Rule 1(b) of those Rules gives this Court the authority to apply the rules to other habeas corpus cases. As discussed in more detail below, Warren is not entitled to relief under Section 2241. Accordingly, the petition shall be DISMISSED.
In the petition, Warren alleges that he is currently serving a term of 451 months' imprisonment for unspecified convictions (Doc. 1, p. 2). Relevant to the instant petition, the Court located numerous convictions for fraud, conspiracy to threaten/injure an officer/juror/witness to impede the administration of justice, and threatening mail communications. See, e.g., United States v. Warren, Case No. 95-cr-209-ACC (M.D. Fla., filed Sept. 20, 1995); United States v. Warren, Case No. 96-cr-064-SDM-TBM-9 (M.D. Fla., filed March 15, 1996). Given the nature of these convictions, it is not surprising that Warren has been placed in the Communications Management Unit ("CMU") at USP-Marion.
In 2009, Warren filed two Section 2241 petitions in this District that set forth claims related to the instant petition. See Warren v. Hollingsworth, Case No. 09-cv-666-JPG (S.D. Ill. 2009) (Doc. 1); Warren v. Hollingsworth, Case No. 09-cv-726-JPG (S.D. Ill. 2009) (Doc. 1). In both, Warren challenged the regulations relied on by the Federal Bureau of Prisons in creating the CMU, his placement in the CMU, and the issuance of disciplinary reports against him, among other things.
On December 11, 2009, Warren's petition in Case No. 09-cv-666 was dismissed with prejudice, after the Court found that his claims essentially relate to the conditions of his confinement and could not be addressed in a habeas action. See Warren v. Hollingsworth, Case No. 09-cv-666-JPG (S.D. Ill. 2009) (Doc. 7). The Court administratively closed Case No. 09-cv-726 on the same day because the petition filed therein was duplicative of the petition that he filed in Case No. 09-cv-666. See Warren v. Hollingsworth, Case No. 09-cv-726-JPG (S.D. Ill. 2009) (Doc. 6).
On March 7, 2011, Warren filed a Petition for Order of Injunction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in this District. See Warren v. United States, et al., Case No. 11-cv-149-JPG (S.D. Ill. 2011). In the petition, Warren accused USP-Marion officials of intercepting his communications with the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Treasury. He sought what was, in essence, a preliminary injunction. However, he failed to file a complaint.
The Court denied Warren's request for injunctive relief and set a deadline for filing a complaint. Id. (Doc. 5). While preparing his complaint, Warren also found time to file numerous other pleadings that accused the Judge of criminal conduct, making false statements, and willfully refusing to perform the duties of his office. In addition, Warren attempted to file a false lien against the Judge in the amount of $100, 000, 000.00. Id. (Doc. 15). Although Warren ultimately met the deadline for filing his complaint, the District Court did not reach the merits of his claims. Instead, the action was dismissed with prejudice as a sanction against Warren for repeatedly filing harassing and vexatious pleadings. Id. (Doc. 16).
II. Habeas Petition
Nearly three years have passed since Warren last filed an action in this District. However, the instant petition recycles the same arguments that Warren already raised in earlier actions. To the extent that the Court can discern any coherent arguments, they appear to be entirely redundant. See Warren v. United States, et al., Case No. 11-cv-149-JPG (S.D. Ill. 2011); Warren v. Hollingsworth, Case No. 09-cv-666-JPG (S.D. Ill. 2009) (Doc. 1); Warren v. Hollingsworth, Case No. 09-cv-726-JPG (S.D. Ill. 2009) (Doc. 1).
According to the petition, Warren is currently housed in USP-Marion's CMU. He questions the regulations relied upon by the BOP in creating the CMU (Doc. 1, p. 2). He also seeks a transfer out of the CMU (Doc. 1, p. 6). Warren objects to a number of conditions in the CMU, including the issuance of disciplinary tickets against him and the monitoring of his communications without his consent (Doc. 1, pp. 2-5). Warren also alludes to several other unconstitutional conditions of confinement claims, which he asserts amount to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment or violate his right to equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment (Doc. 1, p. 5).
The focus of Warren's petition is a complaint that USP-Marion officials effectively prevented him from meeting his federal tax obligation when they intercepted his communications with the United States Department of Treasury, Secretary of Treasury, and Internal Revenue Service (Doc. 1, p. 7). These communications include tax forms and tax payment receipts. Warren maintains that this conduct amounts to mail theft, in violation of federal law. He blames Warden Walton for refusing to report this criminal conduct and for participating in the mail interception scheme.
Plaintiff now seeks to enjoin what he characterizes as "obstructions of the internal revenue law" (Doc. 5, p. 2). He requests the return of these documents ...