United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Beckley
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
L. TINSLEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Alfred Lee Mauldin (hereinafter “Mauldin”) is an
abusive pro se prisoner litigant who, by his own
admission, has filed more than 65 petitions for writs of
habeas corpus in the courts of the United
States. Pending before this court in the above-
reference civil actions are two such petitions, along with
numerous motions related thereto. These matters are assigned
to the Honorable Irene C. Berger, United States District
Judge, and referred to the undersigned United States
Magistrate Judge for submission of proposed findings and a
recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
HISTORY AND DISCUSSION OF PETITIONER'S
Mauldin's conviction and direct appeal.
November 29, 1995, Mauldin was convicted by a jury in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee of one count of being a felon in possession of a
firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g); one count
of possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and one count of using a
firearm during a drug crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
924(c)(1). On February 20, 1996, Mauldin was sentenced to 322
months in prison, followed by a six-year term of supervised
release. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons'
(“BOP”) inmate locator, Mauldin is presently
incarcerated at FCI Beckley, in Beckley, West Virginia, with
a projected release date of May 4, 2019.
direct appeal, Mauldin unsuccessfully challenged his
conviction under 18 U.S.C. §924(c) for
“using” a firearm during a drug crime, in light
of the Supreme Court's decision in Bailey v. United
States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995). He also challenged his
sentencing enhancement under the ACCA and the finding that
his arrest was made pursuant to a valid stop under Terry
v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). United States v.
Mauldin, 109 F.3d 1159 (6th Cir. 1997).
Mauldin's other post-conviction filings.
subsequently filed at least six motions in his court of
conviction seeking post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 and/or 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), none of which
were succcessful. Furthermore, as mentioned above, Mauldin
has filed numerous petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
many of which challenged his conviction, rather than the
execution of his sentence, and which were dismissed for lack
of jurisdiction or as being frivolous. See Mauldin v.
Norris, No. 0:14-173-HRW, 2015 WL 2354743 (E.D. Ky. May
15, 2015) (describing procedural history of criminal and
civil proceedings and listing sample cases).
among those other petitions is Mauldin v. Camp
Administrator Boyd et al, No. 5:17-cv-02104 (S.D. W.Va.,
Mar. 3, 2017), which was filed in this United States District
Court on March 3, 2017 as a “Petition for a Writ of
Audita Querela” under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1651. That matter was transferred by United States
Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn to the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Tennesee,
Mauldin's court of conviction, because such a petition
must be filed in the court of conviction. Thereafter, the
Tennessee federal court construed that petition as a request
for authorization to file a second or successive section 2255
motion and transferred the matter to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which denied such
authorization. See In re Alfred Mauldin, No. 17-5505
(6th Cir. Oct. 31, 2017). In some of his various motions
filed in the instant matters, Mauldin appears to be asking
this court to revisit the rulings in that case, which this
court lacks jurisdiction to do.
The instant section 2241 petitions and motions filed by
April 12, 2017, Mauldin filed the first of two section 2241
petitions that are pending before this court. Mauldin v.
Young, No. 5:17-cv-02312, ECF No. 3 (S. D. W.Va., Apr.
12, 2017) (hereinafter “Case 2312”). Then, on May
1, 2017, Mauldin filed a second section 2241 petition herein.
Mauldin v. Young, No. 5:17-cv-02626, ECF No. 1 (S.D.
W.Va., May 1, 2017) (hereinafter “Case 2626”).
2312, Mauldin appears to be asserting grounds for relief
that, once again, challenge the validity of his conviction
and sentence, as well as making a challenge to the
calculation of his Earned Statutory Good Conduct Time
(“ESGCT”). Specifically, in the initial petition,
which contains four specified grounds for relief, Mauldin
again contends that his arrest was invalid because there was
no Terry stop or ticket issued on August 4, 1995
and, thus, he claims that his arrest, conviction, and
detention are unlawful based upon theories of false arrest
and false imprisonment. Mauldin further appears to assert
that his conviction and sentence are unlawful because a prior
conviction was not a felony and does not support
“triple enhancements.” These claims clearly
challenge the validity of Mauldin's conviction and
sentence and are not cognizable in a section 2241 proceeding
unless they can meet the savings clause discussed below.
Additionally, Mauldin claims that the BOP has conspired to
cover up his false arrest and imprisonment by denying all of
his petitions since 1996. Such a claim is also not
appropriate for consideration under section 2241.
to the filing of the initial petition in Case 2312, Mauldin
has filed eight motions requesting that the court expedite
review of this matter and conduct a hearing to consider
“newly discovered evidence” concerning his
alleged “innocence” of his conviction.
Mauldin's additional motions also contain allegations and
claims concerning his conditions of confinement, and alleged
BOP interference and retaliation, which are not cognizable in
habeas corpus. By separate Order, the undersigned has denied
these various ...