McCaa v. United States of America (INMATE 3)

Filing 18

ORDER: it is ORDERED that petitioner Cedriquez McCaa's 17 "Motion for Correction of a Clerical Error..." is denied, as further set out in Order. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 9/7/2021. (am, ) Modified on 9/7/2021 to correct entry to reflect as "WO" (qc/djy, ).

Case 2:20-cv-00882-MHT-SRW Document 18 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 8

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
CEDRIQUEZ McCAA,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:20cv882-MHT
(WO)

ORDER
Before the court is petitioner Cedriquez McCaa’s
“Motion

for

Correction

of

a

Clerical

Error

to

the

Notice Given by Petitioner on or about October 7th,
2020 of the Transfer from FCI Pollack P.O. Box 4050,
Pollack,

LA,

71467”

(Doc.

17).

For

the

reasons

188

months’

discussed below, the motion will be denied.
McCaa

is

imprisonment
after

he

serving
imposed

pled

guilty

a

by
to

sentence

this

court

possessing

of
in
a

November
firearm

2011
as

a

convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1)
and

924(e).

See

United

States

v.

McCaa,

Case

No.

Case 2:20-cv-00882-MHT-SRW Document 18 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 8

2:10cr191-MEF.
Criminal

Act,

He was sentenced under the Armed Career
or

ACCA,

based

on

his

prior

Alabama

convictions for four counts of robbery in the first
degree, burglary in the third degree, and discharging a
firearm into an occupied building.
McCaa is a frequent litigant in this court, and,
since

his

conviction,

he

has

filed

at

least

three

habeas motions to vacate, set aside, or correct his
federal

sentence

under

28

U.S.C.

§

2255--or

motions

construed as operative § 2255 motions--asserting a host
of claims as grounds for setting aside his conviction
and sentence. See McCaa v. United States, Civil Action
No. 2:16cv467-WKW (M.D. Ala.); McCaa v. United States,
Civil Action No. 2:20cv803-MHT (M.D. Ala.); McCaa v.

United
Ala.).1

States,

Civil

Action

No.

2:20cv882-MHT

(M.D.

One such operative § 2255 motion was the one

McCaa filed in this case. See Petition (Doc. 2).

In

1. McCaa also filed a § 2255 motion, in Civil
Action No. 2:15cv710-WKW (M.D. Ala.), which he later
voluntarily withdrew.
2

Case 2:20-cv-00882-MHT-SRW Document 18 Filed 09/07/21 Page 3 of 8

December 2020, this court dismissed the motion for lack
of jurisdiction, as McCaa had not obtained leave from
the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to file a second
or successive § 2255 motion. See Opinion and Judgment
(Doc. 13 & Doc. 14).

Since January 2021, McCaa has

applied

five

unsuccessfully

times

with

the

Eleventh

Circuit for leave to file a second or successive § 2255

See Case Nos. 21-10217 (11th Cir.), 21-10832

motion.
(11th

Cir.),

21-12063

(11th

Cir.),

21-11452

(11th

Cir.), and 21-12403(11th Cir.).
In his instant “Motion for Correction of a Clerical
Error...,” filed on August 19, 2021, McCaa refers to a
notice of change of address he says he sent to the
clerk’s office “on or about October 7, 2020,” in which,
he

says,

Pollack

he

to

gave

the

notice

Federal

of

his

Transfer

transfer
Center

in

from

FCI

Oklahoma

City, Oklahoma, with an assigned destination of Coleman
USP in Florida.
5.

Motion for Correction (Doc. 17) at 2,

McCaa alleges that the clerk’s office overlooked
3

Case 2:20-cv-00882-MHT-SRW Document 18 Filed 09/07/21 Page 4 of 8

his

notice

of

change

of

address

and,

as

a

result,

failed to send orders and other rulings by this court
to

his

correct

“clerical

Id. at 5.

error”

delayed

He

his

address.

the

asking

says

this

Eleventh

Circuit for leave to file a second or successive § 2255

Id.

motion.

He asks this court to reopen this case

(Civil Action No. 2:20cv882-MHT (M.D. Ala.) and Civil
Action No. 2:20cv803-MHT (M.D. Ala.) so he may have “a
fair opportunity” to seek such authorization from the

Id. at 8.

Eleventh Circuit.

The court declines to

grant his motion for several reasons.
McCaa’s

motion

is

largely

incomprehensible.

This

court can discern no basis for his contention that a
“clerical

error”

by

the

clerk’s

office

hindered

him

from asking the Eleventh Circuit for leave to file a
second

or

successive

§

2255

motion,

or

how

it

is

necessary for this court to reopen this case and Civil
Action No. 2:20cv803-MHT (M.D. Ala.) for him to have “a
fair opportunity” to seek such authorization from the
4

Case 2:20-cv-00882-MHT-SRW Document 18 Filed 09/07/21 Page 5 of 8

Eleventh Circuit.

Such a contention is belied by this

court’s records and those of the Eleventh Circuit.

As

noted above, starting in January 2021, McCaa applied
five times with the Eleventh Circuit for leave to file
a

second

or

successive

§

applications were denied.
untimeliness.2

McCaa

does

2255

motion.

All

those

None were denied based on
not

explain

how

he

was

delayed in asking the Eleventh Circuit for leave to
file

a

second

or

successive

§

2255

motion

or

how

reopening his closed § 2255 cases will facilitate his
filing of future such applications with the Eleventh
Circuit.

Thus, he fails to demonstrate that he has

been prejudiced.

This court is under no obligation to

make arguments on McCaa’s behalf and, in any event,
finds no valid grounds for reopening his closed cases.
This court notes that McCaa waited until August 19,
2021, to assert his claim of “clerical error.”

In

2. To the extent McCaa may want the Eleventh
Circuit to reconsider its grounds for denying his
applications, there clearly is nothing this court can
do to grant him relief.
5

Case 2:20-cv-00882-MHT-SRW Document 18 Filed 09/07/21 Page 6 of 8

March 2021, McCaa filed a motion to reopen this case in
which he makes no mention of his failing to receive
orders and rulings of this court.
(Doc. 15).
to

reopen

See Motion to Reopen

It is clear from McCaa’s March 2021 motion
that

McCaa

timely

received

this

court’s

December 2020 final judgment dismissing his operative
§ 2255 motion for lack of jurisdiction.
in

asserting

his

“clerical

error”

McCaa’s delay

claim

until

well

after he knew a judgment had been entered in this case
weighs against a finding that he was prejudiced by the
alleged failure of the clerk’s office to recognize his
notice

of

change

of

address.

This

finding

of

no

prejudice is further bolstered by the fact that, by the
time

he

asserted

his

claim

of

“clerical

error”

in

August 2021, McCaa had already filed five applications
with the Eleventh Circuit for leave to file a second or
successive § 2255 motion.
Finally,

McCaa

presents

nothing

more

than

bare

assertions that he sent a notice of change of address
6

Case 2:20-cv-00882-MHT-SRW Document 18 Filed 09/07/21 Page 7 of 8

to the clerk’s office “on or about October 7, 2020” or
that he did not receive orders and rulings of this
court

because

of

the

clerk’s

alleged

failure

recognize his notice of change of address.

to

There is no

indication on the docket sheet that the court received
a notice of change of address from McCaa on or about
October 7, 2020, and there is no indication that any of
the

court’s

October

7,

orders
2020,

undeliverable

and

rulings

were

because

sent

returned

McCaa

to

to

could

McCaa

the

not

after

court

be

as

located.

These factors, too, weigh against finding that McCaa is
entitled
reopened.

to

have
The

this
court

case,
finds

or
not

any

other

credible

case,
McCaa’s

assertions that he sent a notice of change of address
to the clerk’s office “on or about October 7, 2020” and
that he did not receive orders and rulings of this
court

because

of

the

clerk’s

alleged

recognize his notice of change of address.
***
7

failure

to

Case 2:20-cv-00882-MHT-SRW Document 18 Filed 09/07/21 Page 8 of 8

Accordingly,

it

is

ORDERED

that

petitioner

Cedriquez McCaa’s “Motion for Correction of a Clerical
Error...” (Doc. 17) is denied.
DONE, this the 7th day of September, 2021.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8