Case ID: f-appx_376/html/0244-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ancell HAMM, Appellant v. Edward G. RENDELL, Governor; Tom Corbett, Attorney General; Harry Wilson, SCI-Fayette Superintendent; Jeffrey Beard, Secretary of Corrections; S.L. NOSE, Lieutenant of Security at SCI-Fayette; Lt. Hooper security Office at SCI-Fayette; Rhonda House, Facility Grievance Coordinator at SCI-Fayette; Summer Dugan, Counselor at SCI-Fayette; Bradley Newton, Unit Manager SCI-Fayette; Tuggle, B-Block Unit Manager at SCI-Fayette; Darlene Linderman, Mail Room Supervisor, SCI-Fayette; Brian A. Coleman, Superintendent at SCI Fayette, Institution; L.T. Peer, Security Office at SCI Fayette, Institution; CO-I Lynn, Corrections Officer, SCI Fayette, Institution; CO-I C.A. Datiz, Corrections Officer SCI Fayette, Institution.
    No. 09-4347.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) April 9, 2010.
    Opinion filed: April 15, 2010.
    Ancell Hamm, Labelle, PA, pro se.
    Lisa W. Basial, Esq., J. Bart Delone, Esq., Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, PA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SLOYITER, CHAGARES and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Ancell Hamm appeals the District Court’s order granting appellees’ motion for summary judgment. For the reasons below, we will affirm.

The procedural history of this case and the details of Hamm’s claims are well known to the parties, set forth in the District Court’s thorough opinion, and need not be discussed at length. Briefly, Hamm argued in his complaint that he was being subjected to involuntary servitude because he was incarcerated -without being duly convicted of a crime. The Magistrate Judge recommended that summary judgment be granted in favor of the appellees. The District Court adopted the Report & Recommendation and entered judgment against Hamm. Hamm filed a timely notice of appeal, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Hamm argues in his brief that he has not been duly convicted of a crime. His argument is -without merit. He contends that his convictions were vacated by the state court. See Commonwealth v. Hamm, 474 Pa. 487, 378 A.2d 1219 (1977). However, he ignores the fact that his life sentences for two counts of first-degree murder were reimposed on remand and affirmed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Commonwealth v. Hamm, 493 Pa. 223, 425 A.2d 744 (1981).

Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s October 30, 2009, 2009 WL 3536631, judgment. Appellant’s motion for a temporary restraining order is denied.