United States District Court, D. Maine
ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION
A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
clarifying the circumstances surrounding certain sealed
docket entries, the Court affirms the Magistrate Judge's
recommended decision, transfers a prisoner's motion under
28 U.S.C. § 2255 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 and
First Circuit Rule 22.1(e), and denies any certificate of
September 14, 2009, this Court held a bench trial and issued
a verdict finding Daniel Poulin guilty as charged of
violating 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), which prohibits the
production of child pornography. Min. Entry (ECF No.
184). On January 27, 2010, the Court imposed on Mr. Poulin
the mandatory minimum sentence of 180 months. J.
(ECF No. 190); 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e). On January 28, 2010,
Mr. Poulin appealed his conviction on two grounds: (1) that
§ 2251(a) was unconstitutional as applied to him because
his conduct was purely personal and did not have a
substantial effect on interstate commerce; and (2) that the
Government's evidence was insufficient to sustain a
conviction because the Government failed to show that he
“produced” sexually explicit images that traveled
interstate. United States v. Poulin, 631 F.3d 17
(1st Cir. 2011); Opinion of Ct. of Appeals for the First
Circuit at 1-2 (ECF No. 209). On January 7, 2011, the
First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction,
J. of Ct. of Appeals for the First Circuit
(ECF No. 210), and on January 28, 2011, the First Circuit
issued its mandate. Mandate of Ct. of Appeals
for the First Circuit (ECF No. 216).
April 6, 2012, Mr. Poulin filed an extensive motion to
vacate, set aside or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. §
2255. Mot. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set
Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Fed. Custody
(ECF No. 224). On April 16, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued
a recommended decision, recommending that the Court dismiss
the petition. Recommended Decision at 29-30 (ECF No.
288). Mr. Poulin objected to the recommended decision on May
18, 2013. Obj. to the Magistrate's
Recommended Decision (ECF No. 291). On January 15, 2014,
this Court affirmed the recommended decision. Order on
Mot. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 at 17 (ECF No. 293);
Am. Order on Mot. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF
No. 295). On February 18, 2014, Mr. Poulin moved for
reconsideration. Pet'r's Mot. for Recons.
(ECF No. 296). On April 24, 2014, this Court denied Mr.
Poulin's motion for reconsideration. Order on Mot.
for Recons. (ECF No. 310).
1, 2015, Mr. Poulin filed a motion for relief pursuant to
Rule 60(b). Mot. Pursuant to Civil Rule 60(b) (ECF
No. 314). On October 19, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a
recommended decision, recommending that the Court dismiss Mr.
Poulin's petition as a second or successive motion under
18 U.S.C. § 2255. Recommended Decision on Rule 60(b)
Mot. (ECF No. 332). On November 6, 2015, Mr. Poulin
objected to the recommended decision. Obj. to Recommended
Decision (ECF No. 333). On January 29, 2016, the Court
affirmed the Magistrate Judge's recommended decision.
Order Affirming the Recommended Decision of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 336).
February 29, 2016, Mr. Poulin filed a motion for
reconsideration of the order affirming the Magistrate
Judge's recommended decision. Rule 60(b) Mot. for
Recons. (ECF No. 337). The Government responded to Mr.
Poulin's motion for reconsideration on March 31, 2016.
Gov't's Resp. to Pet'r's Rule 59(e) and
Rule 60(b) Mots. for Recons. (ECF No. 342). Mr. Poulin
replied on April 19, 2016. Reply to Gov't's Resp.
to Rule 59(e) Mot. to Reconsider (ECF No. 344). On July
19, 2016, the Court issued an order, denying Mr. Poulin's
motion for reconsideration. Order on Mot. for Recons. of
Order on Mot. Pursuant to Fed. R. of Civ. P. 60(b) (ECF
No. 347). On August 8, 2016, Mr. Poulin filed a notice of
appeal to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 348).
Mr. Poulin filed a motion for recusal, demanding that this
Judge recuse himself from any further proceedings on this
case. Mot. for Recusal (ECF No. 339). The Court
denied the motion for recusal on July 19, 2016. Order on
Mot. to Recuse (ECF No. 346). When he appealed the
denial of the motion for reconsideration, Mr. Poulin also
appealed the recusal order. Notice of Appeal (ECF
October 27, 2017, the First Circuit Court of Appeals
characterized Mr. Poulin's appeal as an application for a
certificate of appealability and rejected it. J. of
Ct. of Appeals for the First Circuit (ECF No.
362). It also rejected his appeal of the denial of his motion
to recuse. Id.
August 14, 2017, Mr. Poulin filed a motion and supporting
memorandum for a second in time under § 2255.
Supporting Mem. for a Second in Time Mot. Under §
2255(f)(4) (ECF No. 353) (Pet'r's
Mot.). On September 7, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued
a recommended decision in which he recommended that the
motion be transferred to the Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 and First Circuit
Rule 22.1(e). Recommended Decision on 28 U.S.C. §
2255 Mot. at 3 (ECF No. 360) (Rec. Dec.). The
Magistrate Judge also recommended that the Court deny a
certificate of appealability because there is no substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right within the
meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Id. at
DANIEL POULIN'S OBJECTION
September 25, 2017, Mr. Poulin objected to the recommended
decision. Objs. to the Magistrate's Recommended
Decision (ECF No. 361). Mr. Poulin says that his §
2255 motion is not subject to the bar against second or
successive § 2255 motions because he filed his motion
under § 2255(f)(4) based on a claim of newly-discovered
evidence. Id. at 3. The so-called newly-discovered
evidence is “(1) that there were secreted ex parte
proceedings conducted against Movant while litigation was
pending, and (2) the Court, or someone the Court is directly
responsible for, concealed the sealed and ex parte
proceedings from Movant and the First Circuit Court of
understand Mr. Poulin's reference to secret, sealed, ex
parte proceedings, it is necessary to return to his August
14, 2017 motion. Mr. Poulin noticed that four entries in his
docket were sealed. Pet'r's Mot. at 7-9
(citing ECF Nos. 286-87, 292, 294). Mr. Poulin assumes the
worst about these sealed entries. Id. at 7
(“Judge Woodcock was involved in secret EX PARTE
communications with an unknown entity or third party”).