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.

Mota v. Wagner

United States District Court, Fifth Circuit

October 31, 2013

ELVIS MOTA, #XXXXX-XXX, Petitioner,
v.
BARBARA WAGNER, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., and CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR., Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND SANCTION ORDER

DAVID BRAMLETTE, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court, sua sponte, for consideration of dismissal and imposition of sanctions. On October 24, 2013, Petitioner Mota, a federal inmate currently incarcerated at the Adams County Correctional Center (ACCC), Natchez, Mississippi, filed this pro se Petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Upon liberal review of the Petition and Mota's previous habeas cases, the Court has reached the following conclusions.[1]

I. Background

Petitioner was convicted of conspiracy to distribute and possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. U.S. v. Mota, No. 1:05-cr-1301 (S.D. N.Y. Jan. 30, 2007). As a result, Petitioner was sentenced to serve 130 months in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), followed by a 4-year term of supervised release. Petitioner's conviction and sentence was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. See U.S. v. Mota, No. 07-0221 (2nd Cir. June 24, 2008).

A. Southern District of New York filings

On April 22, 2009, Mota filed a pro se application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which the sentencing court construed as a Motion to Vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Motion was dismissed by the Southern District of New York as time-barred. See Mota v. USA, No. 1:09-cv-5189 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2009). On July 15, 2010, Mota filed another pro se application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which the sentencing court deemed an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 Motion and transferred to the Second Circuit. See Mota v Laughlin, No. 1:10-cv-6698 (S.D. N.Y. Sept. 9, 2010). On January 25, 2011, the Second Circuit denied Mota permission to proceed with the second or successive petition. See Mota v. Laughlin, No. 10-4317 (2nd Cir. Jan. 25, 2011).[2]

B. Southern District of Mississippi filings

On May 19, 2011, Mota filed a pro se application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in this Court. See Mota v. Laughlin , No. 5:11-cv-79 (S.D.Miss. Oct. 21, 2011). Mota asserted allegations he previously presented to the Southern District of New York and the Second Circuit, regarding his arrest, prosecution and conviction and he added claims regarding the validity of the immigration detainer lodged against him. He also claimed that his constitutional right of access to the courts was violated by a mail conspiracy between two Assistant United States Attorneys and prison officials. The Court concluded that Mota was challenging the validity of his conviction and sentence, that he failed to satisfy the requirements of the savings clause, that he was not in custody for purposes of the immigration detainer, that his access to the Court claims had already been litigated and any recent conditions claims were not properly pursued in a habeas petition. See Mota v. Laughlin, No. 5:11-cv-79 (S.D.Miss. Oct. 21, 2011)(citing § 2255(e); Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 454 (5th Cir. 2000); Solsona v. Warden, F.C.I., 821 F.2d 1129, 1132 (5th Cir. 1987)). Therefore, this Court determined that it was without jurisdiction to consider the claims brought in the § 2241 case and dismissed the action.[3]

On June 19, 2012, Mota filed another pro se application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in this Court. See Mota v. Laughlin , No. 5:12-cv-86 (S.D.Miss. Feb. 8, 2013). In this petition, Mota purported to challenge a 2003 arrest warrant issued by the State of New York based on a conviction for driving under the influence, and he continued to assert challenges to his confinement that he had already presented to either the Southern District of New York, the Second Circuit or this Court. The Court found that to the extent the petition sought relief based on the 2003 New York arrest warrant, it was dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Orders of the Court under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court also concluded that Mota was not entitled to mandamus relief and to the extent the petition was repetitive to at least one of Mota's previous habeas cases, it was an abuse of the writ. The Court entered the following sanction warning:

The Court is warning Mota that any future attempts of a similar nature will be found to be an abuse of the writ and will likely lead to the imposition of sanctions, including but not limited to monetary fines or restrictions on his ability to file pro se actions in this Court.

See Mem. Op. [ECF No.11] at 9, in Mota v. Laughlin, No. 5:12-cv-86 (S. D. Miss. 2013).

On January 9, 2013, prior to the disposition of his 2012 habeas petition, Mota filed another pro se application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in this Court. See Mota v. Laughlin , No. 5:13-cv-5 (S.D.Miss. Feb. 12, 2013). The Court found the petition to be repetitive to Mota's previous habeas cases and dismissed the petition as an abuse of the writ.[4] The Court entered the following sanction warning:

The Court is warning Mota that any future attempts of a similar nature will be found to be an abuse of the writ and will lead to the imposition of sanctions, including but not limited to monetary fines or restrictions on his ability to file pro se actions in this Court.

See Mem. Op. [ECF No.3] at 6-7, in Mota v. Laughlin, No. 5:13-cv-5 (S. D. Miss. Feb. 12, 2013). The Court declined to impose more than a sanction warning at that time, noting that Mota filed the petition prior to the sanction warning being issued in Mota v. Laughlin, No. 5:12-cv-86. However, the Court stated, "[w]ith that said, the Court finds that Mota is now clearly on notice that any future attempts of a ...


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.