Davis v. Chandler, Warden

Filing 19

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 18 Findings and Recommendations on Case. Petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Davis warned any future filings submitted under 28 USC § 2241 challenging the conviction he received in 4:05-cr-111 may result in imposition of sanctions, including monetary sanctions or a bar to filing any civil actions in federal court w/o obtaining prior authorization. (Ordered by Judge Terry R Means on 1/23/2014) (ult)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
MICHAEL ANTHONY DAVIS,
Petitioner,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

VS.
RODNEY W. CHANDLER, Warden,
FCI-Fort Worth,
Respondent.

CIVIL ACTION NO.4:13-CV-439-Y

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS,
DISMISSING PETITION UNDER § 2241 and,
WARNING MICHAEL ANTHONY DAVIS OF POTENTIAL SANCTIONS
Before the Court is the petition for writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 of Michael Anthony Davis, along with the
December 4, 2013, findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the
United States magistrate judge. The magistrate judge gave the
parties until December 26 to file written objections to the
findings, conclusions, and recommendation.

As of the date of this

order, no written objections have been filed.
The Court has reviewed the pleadings and the record in this
case, and has reviewed for clear error the findings, conclusions
and recommendation. The Court concludes that, for the reasons
stated by the magistrate judge, the petition for writ of habeas
corpus should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The

Court

notes,

as

listed

in

the

response

and

in

the

magistrate judge’s report, this action is now the second petition
for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by Davis purporting to
raise challenges to his conviction in this Court in United States
v. Davis, No. 4:05-CR-111-Y(2).

The first petition was dismissed

for lack of jurisdiction on May 21, 2013. Davis v. Chandler,
No.4:13-CV-088-Y. This case was filed just eight days later, and
raises some of the same or similar grounds asserted before. It too,

will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. These cases were filed,
as noted in the response, after Davis’s extensive post-judgment
history in this Court, including at least ten other post-judgment
motions contesting his conviction and sentence. After this Court
denied his original motion for relief under § 2255, Davis v. United
States,

No.4:07-CV-749-Y,

Davis

has

filed

several

successive

motions under § 2255,1 and he has never obtained authorization from
the court of appeals.
As noted by the magistrate judge, Davis’s claims under § 2241
in the present case have not invoked the savings clause. In spite
of Davis’s history of abusing the successive § 2255 process, and in
spite of being advised that his claims did not invoke the savings
clause

in

prior

case

number

4:13-CV-088-Y,

Davis

filed

this

petition under § 2241, again raising challenges that he is well
aware will not invoke the savings clause. As such, the magistrate
judge’s recommendation that Davis be warned of potential sanctions
is also adopted.
Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of
the magistrate judge are ADOPTED.
Petitioner Michael Anthony Davis’s petition for writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Michael Anthony Davis, BOP No. 33896-177, is warned that any

1

These motions were assigned civil case numbers 4:09-CV-070-Y, 4:09-CV-555Y, 4:09-CV-741-Y, 4:09-CV-761-Y, 4:11-CV-667-Y, and 4:12-CV-086-Y.

2

future filings submitted under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the
conviction he received in this Court in case number 4:05-CR-111-Y,
may result in the imposition of sanctions, including monetary
sanctions or a bar to filing any civil actions in federal court
without first obtaining prior authorization from a district judge
or magistrate judge.
SINGED January 23, 2014.
____________________________
TERRY R. MEANS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3