United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. Rosenstengel Chief U.S. District Judge.
Sacorey Lennel Clark, an inmate of the United States Bureau
of Prisons (“BOP”), currently incarcerated at
Federal Correctional Institute in Greenville, Illinois
(“Greenville”), brings this habeas corpus action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He also labels his
petition as one under the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. §
petition, Clark complains about a number of issues with the
BOP including: the confiscation of his pre-paid postage to
outside individuals, being improperly identified as a
sovereign citizen, a strip search in front of other inmates,
the confiscation of his personal property and legal
materials, failing to provide him with information regarding
unknown insurance, surety, and bonding providers, and ongoing
retaliation by prison officials. (Doc. 1, pp. 3, 4, 6, 8,
10-13). Clark seeks relief in the form of an injunction
requiring Respondents to work with him regarding his incoming
and outgoing legal and personal mail, obtain a notary of
legal documents, and remedy issues preventing Clark from
obtaining insurance, indemnity, and bonding information.
(Doc. 1, p. 16). He also seeks a number of documents
including his original birth certificate and social security
numbers. (Id. at p. 16).
matter is now before the Court for review of the petition
pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases
in United States District Courts, which 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) gives the Court the authority to
apply the Rules to other habeas corpus cases.
petition is confusing and convoluted. It includes a number of
seemingly unrelated allegations regarding wrongs that were
done to him by officials during his time at the BOP. He
references the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act,
and the Administrative Procedure Act throughout the petition.
He alleges, among other things, that he was disciplined in
November 2018, sent to disciplinary segregation for ten days,
and had his materials seized in an attempt to label him a
sovereign citizen. (Doc. 1, p. 4). In February 2019, he was
labeled a sovereign citizen and again placed in segregation
and had his legal materials seized. (Id. at p. 10).
Clark alleges that this occurred without first being provided
a confiscation notice/form. He also alleges that he was strip
searched in unrelated events in July, August, September, and
October. (Id. at p. 6). He was also prevented from
mailing out certain documents, including his current 2241
petition, and he has not been provided with disclosure of
unknown named insurance, surety, and bonding providers
despite numerous requests. (Id. at pp. 8, 11).
Clark does not indicate any specifics regarding his current
term of imprisonment, he is currently serving a term of 180
months' imprisonment for a felon in possession of a
firearm conviction. United States v. Clark, No.
16-cr-107-JAR, Doc. 222 (“Criminal Case”). Clark
first filed a Section 2241 petition in the Eastern District
of Missouri on April 5, 2018. Clark v. United
States, No. 18-cv-524-JCH (E.D. Mo. 2018) (“First
2241 Petition”). The district judge dismissed that
petition, finding it had no basis in law and fact and was
based on typical “sovereign citizen” arguments.
(First 2241 Petition, Doc. 4, pp. 2-3). Clark appealed the
decision, which was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit.
subsequently filed a Section 2241 petition in this Court.
That petition, filed on March 13, 2019, contains nearly
identical arguments to his current petition. See Clark v.
United States, No. 19-cv-297-SMY (Doc. 1) (“Second
2241 Petition”). The petition alleges that he was
placed in segregation in February 2019 and was labeled by the
BOP as a sovereign citizen. (Second 2241 Petition, Doc. 1, p.
5). The petition also mentions his placement in segregation
in November 2018 and the strip searches in the months of June
through October (Id. at p. 6). He also mentions his
outgoing mail being stolen and seeks the identity of unknown
named insurance, surety, and bonding providers. (Id.
at p. 12). That petition is still pending before the Court.
filed the petition in this case on April 22, 2019 (Doc. 1).
Section 2241 Petition
Court is obligated to independently evaluate the substance of
Clark's claims to determine if the correct statute, in
this case 28 U.S.C. § 2241, is being invoked. See
Godoski v. United States, 304 F.3d 761, 763 (7th Cir.
2002) (court must evaluate independently the substance of the
claim being brought, to see if correct statute is being
invoked). A petition for a writ of habeas corpus is the
proper route “[i]f the prisoner is seeking what can
fairly be described as a quantum change in the level of
custody - whether outright freedom, or freedom subject to the
limited reporting and financial constraints of bond or parole
or probation, or the run of the prison in contrast to the
approximation to solitary confinement that is disciplinary
segregation.” Graham v. Broglin, 922 F.2d 379,
381 (7th Cir. 1991). If, however, the prisoner “is
seeking a different program or location or environment, then
he is challenging the conditions rather than the fact of
confinement and his remedy is under civil rights law.”
Id.; see also Pischke v. Litscher, 178 F.3d
497, 499-500 (7th Cir. 1999).
brings this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. However, the
relief he actually seeks is a change to his conditions of
confinement. He seeks access to his mail, the ability to
obtain certain legal documents including: power of attorney,
common-law copyright notice, and security agreements, as well
as his birth certificate, social security number, access to
computers and printers, and insurance, indemnity, and bonding
information from the Respondents. (Doc. 1, p. 16). Although
he mentions being placed in segregation as a result of a
disciplinary ticket, he does not indicate that he is
challenging that disciplinary ticket or his term in
claims relate to his conditions of confinement. He challenges
the confiscation of his legal materials and mail. He also
maintains that he was subjected to an improper strip ...