Davis v. Means

Filing 6

Order Adopting Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations re: 4 Findings and Recommendations on Case; Dismissing Petition Under 2241 as an Abuse of the Writ and Imposing Sanctions on Michael Anthony Davis...Petition is dismissed as a buse of the writ; petitioner ordered to pay monetary sanction of $250 to the clerk; IF DAVIS ATTEMPTS TO FILE IN THIS COURT ANY PLEADINGS CHALLENGING A CONVICTION OR SENTENCE WITHOUT PROVIDING PROOF OF PAYMENT OF THE MONETARY SANCTION, THE CLERK WILL DOCKET THE PAPERS FOR ADMIN PURPOSES ONLY. Any submissions that do not show proof that the sanction has been paid may be summarily reviewed and closed under authority of this order. cy to fin/cy to EDTX sanctions, cy to petitioner. (Ordered by Judge Terry R Means on 3/5/2014) (wrb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
MICHAEL ANTHONY DAVIS,
(BOP No. 33896-177)
Petitioner,
VS.
RODNEY W. CHANDLER, Warden,
FCI-Fort Worth,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO.4:14-CV-078-Y

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS,
DISMISSING PETITION UNDER § 2241 AS AN ABUSE OF THE WRIT and,
IMPOSING SANCTIONS ON MICHAEL ANTHONY DAVIS
In this action brought by petitioner Michael Anthony Davis
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the Court has made an independent review of
the following matters in the above-styled and numbered cause:
1.

The pleadings and record;

2.

The proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation of
the United States magistrate judge filed on February 6,
2014;

3.

The petitioner's written objections to the proposed
findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United
States magistrate judge filed on February 14, 2014.

The Court, after de novo review, concludes that the Petitioner’s objections must be overruled, that the petition for writ
of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 should be dismissed as an
abuse of the writ and that Davis should be sanctioned, for the
reasons stated in the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions,
and as set forth herein.
The Court notes, as listed in the magistrate judge’s report,
this action is now the third 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 (N.D. Tex. May 21,
2013.) The next case was filed just eight days later, and it raised
some of the same or similar grounds asserted before. It too, was
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by order and judgment of January
23, 2014, in which this Court warned Davis of the possibility of
sanctions if he filed another 2241 petition. Davis V. Chandler, No.
4:13-CV-439-Y

(N.D. Tex. January 23, 2014).

These cases were all filed after Davis’s extensive postjudgment history in this Court, including at least ten other postjudgment 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 for which he has never obtained authorization from the court of appeals. In the Court’s resolution of the
most recent of these motions, this Court warned Davis that if he
filed any other challenge to his conviction and sentence without
providing authorization from the court of appeals, he could be
subject to sanctions. Davis v. United States, No.4:14-CV-059-Y
(4:05-CR-111-Y)(N.D. Tex. January 28, 2014).
Undeterred by these warnings, Davis filed yet another petition
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, just a few days after the entry of the

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, 4:12-CV-086-Y, and 4:14-CV-059-Y.

- 2 -

orders

warning

him

of

the

possibility

of

the

imposition

of

sanctions.
In his findings and conclusions as to Davis’s latest petition
under § 2241, the magistrate judge has recounted Davis’s history
and recommended that the instant petition be dismissed as an abuse
of the writ and that sanctions be imposed upon Davis. In his
objections, Davis continues to burden the Court with specious
arguments, such as a claim that he did not actually file a direct
appeal, and unrelated matters regarding the application of the
PLRA. The Court concludes that a monetary sanction is warranted.
Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of
the magistrate judge that this action must be dismissed as an abuse
of

the

writ

of

habeas

corpus

and

that

sanctions

imposed

is

ADOPTED.2
Petitioner Michael Anthony Davis’s petition for writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in this action is DISMISSED as an
abuse of the writ of habeas corpus. Michael Anthony Davis, BOP No.
33896-177, is ORDERED to pay a monetary sanction of $250 to the
clerk of this Court.

If Davis attempts to file in this Court any

pleadings challenging a conviction or sentence without providing

2

A district court may raise the issue of repetitive frivolous claims or
abuse of the writ sua sponte. See Rodriguez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 694, 697 N.1
(5th Cir.), cert. den’d, 520 U.S. 1267 1997); see generally Kiser v. Johnson, 163
F.3d 326, 329 (5th Cir. 1999)(recognizing authority of district courts to raise
non-jurisdictional affirmative defenses sua sponte in habeas cases--including
abuse of the writ)(citing Rodriguez, and McQueen V. Whitley, 989 F.2d 184, 185
(5th Cir. 1993)(abuse of the writ).

- 3 -

proof of payment of the monetary sanction, the clerk will docket
such papers or pleadings for administrative purposes only.

Any

submissions that do not show proof that the sanction has been paid
may be summarily reviewed and closed under authority of this order.
SIGNED March 5, 2014.

____________________________
TERRY R. MEANS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

- 4 -