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.

Proffitt v. Entzel

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia

January 30, 2019

WILBERT EUGENE PROFFITT, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN ENTZEL, Respondent.

          Stamp Judge

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          JAMES P. MAZZONE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         On June 14, 2018, the pro se petitioner, Wilbert Eugene Proffitt, filed this habeas action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petitioner is a federal inmate housed at FCI Hazelton and has satisfied the filing fee.

         The matter is assigned to the Honorable Frederick P. Stamp, United States District Judge, and is referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for initial screening and to make proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

         II. FACTS [1]

         On June 11, 1971, the petitioner was sentenced in the Eastern District of Virginia to 25 years of imprisonment for bank robbery (Nos. 21-71-A and 22-71-A in EDVA). On May 14, 1974, he was sentenced in the Middle District of Pennsylvania to four years of incarceration for attempted escape from a federal prison (No. 022373-15 in MDPA). This sentence was ordered to run consecutively with any sentence he was serving on that date. The petitioner was subsequently released from the federal sentences.

         On June 22, 1974, the petitioner's federal parole was revoked, and a parole violator term of 29 years, 6 months and 14 days was imposed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On March 22, 1984, he was paroled from this violator term.

         On September 10, 1987, the petitioner's federal parole was revoked by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and a parole violator term of 4, 974 days was imposed. On November 26, 1991, he was paroled to be on parole supervision until May 12, 2001, the original full-term expiration of his sentence.

         On March 29, 1995, the petitioner's probation officer requested that the Parole Commission issue a parole violator warrant, and the Commission issued the warrant on April 18, 1995. The petitioner was not arrested on the warrant until October 29, 2007. The petitioner then filed a habeas petition in the Eastern District of Virginia. Apparently, on December 7, 2007, despite the pendency of charges of parole violation, including the charge that he had been an absconder from parole supervision for over 12 years and may have committed a federal law violation by illegally possessing a shotgun at the time of his arrest on the parole violator warrant, the petitioner was released on a personal recognizance bond in the Alexandria Division of the Eastern District of Virginia.

         On November 8, 2017, the petitioner's federal parole was revoked, and a 2, 223-day parole violator term was imposed. On December 18, 2017, the petitioner was held at the Federal Detention Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as a holdover inmate, pending his designation to a federal penal facility for sentenced inmates. On June 4, 2018, he was designated to FCI Hazelton. His next parole hearing is tentatively scheduled for May of 2020. His projected satisfaction date is November 28, 2021.

         III. ANALYSIS

         A district court should construe pro se petitions liberally, no matter how unskillfully pleaded. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). “Although the pleading requirements are construed liberally, ‘[l]iberal construction has its limits, for the pleading must at least set forth sufficient information for the court to determine whether some recognized legal theory exists upon which relief could be accorded the pleader. If it fails to do so, a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) will be granted.'” 2 Moore's Federal Practice § 12.34[1][b], at 12-60 (3d ed).” Minone v. McGrath, 435 F.Supp.2d 266 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).

         The petitioner indicates that the petition concerns “death squads within the Federal Bureau of Prisons.” ECF No. 1 at 1. He alleges that the BOP has consistently attempted different methods to destroy him since 1973, and continues to do so. In support of this allegation, the petitioner maintains that he was removed from the penitentiary at Lewisburg in August of 1973, after “Dr. Mazur stated ‘they will kill you here.'” Id. at 5. The petitioner further alleges that he is incarcerated because of Miskell v. United States[2], filed in Richmond. He then indicates that after he was arrested on Halloween of 2017, and taken to Elkins, West Virginia, he was sent to Ohio where a murder plot was discovered so he was sent to Philadelphia and placed in a mental health ward where “an actual attempt involving BOP personnel is involved.” Id. at 6. The petitioner continues by noting that there is an attempt in the government to destroy the constitution's authority and replace it with “Black Gestapo”. He indicates that the basis is one of religion and politics with communist takeover from within, and persons with knowledge are targeted with some success. He further maintains that this already in practice in five states and eight American cities, Philadelphia being one of them, flying “Black Gestapo” colors and using all levels of authority to pursue their objectives. He also alleges that persons are set up, deaths classified, charges fabricated that can be discovered through a method described as “puppet master” being placed in ...


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.