Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Mauldin v. Young

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Beckley

March 27, 2018

D.L. YOUNG, Warden, FCI Beckley, Respondent.



         Petitioner 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.[1] 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. § 636(b)(1)(B).


         A. Mauldin's conviction and direct appeal.

         On 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.

         On 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).

         B. Mauldin's other post-conviction filings.

         Mauldin 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).

         Also 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.

         C. The instant section 2241 petitions and motions filed by Mauldin.

         On 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”).

         Case 2312

         In Case 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.

         Subsequent 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 ...

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.