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.

Warren v. Walton

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

April 2, 2015

JACK WADE WARREN, # XXXXX-XXX, Petitioner,
v.
JEFFREY S. WALTON, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STACI M. YANDLE, District Judge.

Petitioner Jack Wade Warren is currently incarcerated in the United States Penitentiary at Marion, Illinois ("USP-Marion"). He is housed in the Communications Management Unit. On December 24, 2014, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). On January 6, 2015, he supplemented the petition with an amendment (Doc. 5). On January 16, 2015, the district court dismissed the petition on the merits (Doc. 6).[1] Judgment was entered the same day (Doc. 7).

Now before the Court is Warren's "Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to FRCP Rule 60(b)(6), " which he filed on January 26, 2015 (Doc. 8). Warren also filed five related documents, [2] after judgment was entered in this matter:

(1) Notice Pursuant to Title 26 CFR § 301.6323(g)" (Doc. 9);
(2) Notice of Fault and Opportunity to Cure Fault Pursuant to Title 26 U.S.C.S. § 7214. (a)(3), (4), (5), (6), (8) (Doc. 10);
(3) Affidavit/Declaration of Jack Warren of Criminal Liability Pursuant to Title 26 U.S.C.S. § 7214. (a)(3), (4), (5), (6), (8), and in accordance with Title 26 CFR § 1.468B-1(c)(2)(ii) provisions (Doc. 11);
(4) Notice of Registration of Claim Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 24. (a)(1), (2), which includes notice of an administrative claim for damages of $200, 000, 000.00 against the United States Government under the Federal Tort Claims Act, Title 28 USC § 1346(b), 2671 et. seq. (Doc. 12); and
(5) Affidavit/Declaration of Jack Warren of Criminal Liability Pursuant to Title 26 USCS Section 7214. (a)(3), (4), (5), (6), (8), and in accordance with Title 26 CFR § 1.468B-1(c)(2)(ii) provisions (Doc. 14).

For the reasons that follow, Warren's "motion for reconsideration" (Doc. 8) will be denied. All related documents (Docs. 9-12, 14) will be stricken from the record.

Procedural History

According to his Section 2241 petition, Warren is currently serving a term of 451 months' imprisonment for unspecified convictions (Doc. 1, p. 2). 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). Warren is serving his sentence in the Communications Management Unit ("CMU") at USP-Marion.

The petition recycles many of the same arguments that Warren previously raised in earlier actions that were dismissed with prejudice. See Warren v. United States, et al., Case No. 11-cv-149-JPG (S.D. Ill. 2011) (Doc. 1); 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). He contends 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. Warren seeks return of the documents and transfer out of the CMU (Doc. 1, p. 6). In addition, he recycles old claims challenging the conditions in the CMU as amounting to "cruel and unusual punishment" under the Eighth Amendment and denial of his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the law (Doc. 1, pp. 2-6).

Warren's petition was dismissed with prejudice. At its core, the petition did not seek relief that is available to Warren under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A petition seeking habeas relief is appropriate under Section 2241 when a petitioner is challenging the fact or duration of his confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 490 (1973); Waletzki v. Keohane, 13 F.3d 1079, 1080 (7th Cir. 1994). A habeas corpus petition is the proper vehicle for presenting a claim "if but only if the prisoner is seeking to get out' of custody in a meaningful sense." Pischke v. Litscher, 178 F.3d 497, 500 (7th Cir.1999). The remedies Warren seeks do not include any shortening of his sentence. He does not ask to "get out" of custody. Instead, he seeks transfer out of the CMU, prosecution of the respondent and other prison officials for violating IRS statutes, the return of his documentation, and an injunction against "obstructions of the internal revenue law" (Doc. 1, p. 6; Doc. 5, p. 2). See Glaus v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 387-88 (7th Cir. 2005) (utilizing a remedies-based analysis to determine if habeas or a civil rights action is the proper vehicle for a claim). The remedy for such constitutional violations is not release from prison or the alteration of Warren's sentence. Therefore, Warren's claims cannot be addressed in a habeas action.

Instead, the Court found that Warren's claims are more akin to those raised by a federal prisoner in an action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The Court declined to re-characterize the habeas petition as a complaint brought pursuant to Bivens or offer an opinion regarding the merits of such claims because the Seventh Circuit discourages district courts from resorting to this practice. See Bunn v. Conley, 309 F.3d 1002, ...


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.