AL D- 2 1 9 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 10- 1923

___________ BO ND AR Y M CCA LL,

A ppel l ant v . W ARREN DAVI D EBBE RT

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 09- C V - 01670) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e W i l l i am J. N eal on

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

J une 10, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A M B R O and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 21, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM B ondaryM cC al l appea l s fr om an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC ourtforthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, deny i ng hi s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on of the di s m i s s alA s not ed bel ow , w e w i l l l i ber al l ycons true M cC al l ’ s not i ce of appea l as 1 chal l engi ng al s o the di s m i s s al of hi s habea s pet i t i on. In a lette r to th is C o u rt d a ted Ju n e 9 , 2 0 1 0 , M c C a ll state s th a t h e w ish e s “ to 2 chal l enge the C l erk’ s offi ce r echar act er i zat i on of the Pet i t i on; ” how ever , M cC al l t i t l ed the pet i t i on as a habe as pet i t i on, and i tw as s o docket ed. See B i vens v. Si x U nknow n N amed A gent s of Feder al B ur eau of N ar cot i cs , 403 3 U . S . 3 8 8 (19 7 1 ). 2 o f h is h ab e a s p e tit io n . B e c a u se th e ap p e a l ra ise s n o su b sta n tial q u e stio n , w e w ill 1 su m m a rilya f

f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t. M c C a ll file d a h ab e a s p e tit io n in f e d e ra l co u rt, c h a llen g in g h is tra n sf e r to 2 A l l enw ood C orr ect i onal Faci l i tydue t o an i ncr eas e i n hi s s ecur i tyl evel , and cha l l engi ng pr i s on condi t i ons , i ncl udi ng, i nt eral i a, over cr ow di ng, i nadequa t e medi calcar e and sa n itatio n , ac c e ss to c o u rts, a n d a c c e ss to re c re a tio n . T h e M a g istra te J u d g e a ss ig n e d to th e c a se d e ter m in e d th a t h is c laim s w e re n o t co g n iza b le in a h a b e a s c a se f iled p u rsu a n t to 28 U . S. C . § 2241, as M cC al l w as notchal l engi ng the fa ctordur at i on of hi s cus t ody , and w as notchal l engi ng the exe cut i on of hi s s ent ence . T he M agi s tr at e Judge r ecomm ended thatthe pet i t i on be di s m i s s ed w i thoutpr ej udi ce t o hi s fi l i ng a B i vens act i on. 3 A ft ercons i der i ng r es pons es fr om both part i es , the D i s tr i ctC ourtadopt ed the M agi s tr at e Judge’ s R eportand R ecomm endat i on, di s m i s s ed the habe as pet i t i on w i thout p re ju d ice a n d d e n ied a n d d ism iss e d v a rio u s o u tsta n d in g m o tio n s. M c C a ll file d a tim e ly m ot i on forr econs i der at i on and l at erfi l ed a doc um entt i t l ed “M ot i on fors t atus of m ot i on f o r re c o n sid e ra tio n ,” w h ich th e D istric t C o u rt c o n stru e d a s a m e m o ra n d u m o f law inA s w e ar e af fi rm i ng both or der s , the A ppel l ees ar e notpr ej udi ced byourl i ber al 4 re a d in g o f

th e N o tic e o f

A p p e a l. W e not e that , i n an A pr i l 2010 l ett ert o thi s C ourt , M cC al l s t at ed thatthe appe al m i ghtbe pr ematur e, becaus e a mot i on he fi l ed af t erthe N ot i ce of

A ppealas ki ng for fu rth er rec o n side rati o n w as stil l pen d ing in the D istri ct C o u rt . W e h o ld tha t M cC all ’s N ot i ce of

A ppealval i dl yconfe rr ed j ur i s di ct i on upon thi s C ourt . T urnerv. E ver s , 726 F . 2 d 1 1 2 , 1 1 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 4 ). 3 s upportof hi s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on. I n an or derent er ed M ar ch 15, 2010, the D i s tr i ctC ourtdeni ed the mot i on forr econs i der at i on. M cC al l fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of ap p e a l.W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. Pur s uantt o R ul e 4( a) ( 4) of the Feder al R ul es of A ppel l at e Pr ocedur e, w her e a t i m el ym ot i on t o al t eroramend the j udgm enti s fi l ed, the t i m e t o appea l runs fr om the entryof the or derdi s pos i ng of that m ot i on. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derthe deni al of M cC al l ’ s m ot i on t o r eopen, and al s o the di s m i s s al of hi s habea s pet i t i on. M C I T el ecomm uni cat i ons C orp. v. T e lec o n c e p ts, In c ., 7 1 F .3 d 1 0 8 6 , 1 0 9 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 5 ) (p ro p e r to e x e rc ise ap p e llate j ur i s di ct i on overor der s nots peci fi ed i n not i ce of appea l i f ther e i s connec t i on betw een s peci fi ed and uns peci fi ed or der , i nt ent i on t o appea l uns peci fi ed or deri s appar entand oppos i ng partyi s notpr ej udi ced) . W hi l e the N ot i ce of A ppealr efe r s t o the “M ar ch 15, 2010 A . D . or der , ” w hi ch i s the or derdeny i ng M cC al l ’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on, the not i ce c har act er i zes the or deras one “de ny i ng hi s habea s pet i t i on. ” Ther e i s a cl ear connec t i on betw een the or derdeny i ng M cC al l ’ s m ot i on t o r eopen and the one di s m i s s i ng his hab eas pet i t i on , and w e fi nd that M cC al l i ntended t o ap peal fr om bo th. W e exerci se 4In h is J u n e 9 , 2 0 1 0 lette r to th is C o u rt, M c C a ll su g g e sts f o r th e f irst tim e th a t a 5 “ p re v io u s (D H O ) re su lted in th e f o rf e itu re o f g o o d tim e . . . . ” W e d o n o t ad d re ss th is cont ent i on, as thi s C ourt“cannotcons i derm at er i al on appea l thati s out s i de of the di s tr i ct courtr ecor d. ” I n r e C api t al C i t i es /A B C , I nc. ' s A ppl i cat i on forA cce s s t o Seal ed T ran scripts, 9 1 3 F . 2 d 8 9 , 9 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). Ital so app ears that M cC al l con ceded that hi s pri son co nd i t i on cl ai m s, atl easttho se 6 in v o lv in g a c c e ss to th e c o u rts a n d a n in a d e q u a te la w lib ra ry , w e re n o t p ro p e rlyb ro u g h t in a h ab ea s p eti ti o n . S ee M o ti o n fo r st atus o f m o ti o n fo rec o n side rati o n , d k t. # 4 1 , at 2. In anyevent , w e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s deci s i on t o di s m i s s hi s pr i s on condi t i on cl ai m s w i thoutpr ej udi ce t o r ai s i ng them i n a B i vens act i on. 4 pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s l egalconclus i ons . C r adl e v. U ni t ed St at es , 290 F . 3 d 5 3 6 , 5 3 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlyd ism iss e dM c C a ll’s h a b e a s p e tit io n a n d d e n ied h is m ot i on forr econs i der at i on. M cC al l conce ded thathe w as notchal l engi ng hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence , butar gued thathi s chal l enge t o hi s pr i s on tr ans fercons t i tut ed a c hal l enge 5 t o the execu t i on of h i s sent ence. M cC al l ci t ed W oo dallv. F ederal B ureau o f P ri sons, 6 432 F. 3d 235 ( 3d C i r . 2005) , as s upportforthi s cont ent i on. W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ct C o u rt th a t W o o d a ll d o e s n o t su p p o rt M c C a ll’s a rg u m e n t. In W o o d a ll w e h e ldth a t a fede r al pr i s oner ' s chal l enge t o the B ur eau of Pr i s on’ s deci s i on r egar di ng pl ace m enti n a comm uni tycorr ect i onal fac i l i ty( “C C C ”) i s a cha l l enge t o the exe cut i on of a s ent ence c o g n iza b le u n d e r § 2 2 4 1 . Id . at 2 4 3 -4 4 . H o w e v e r, in W o o d a ll w e n o ted th e re lativ e ly len ien t p o licie s o f

a C C C , an d n o ted th a t “c o m m u n ityc o n f in e m e n t is q u a lit a tiv e ly di ffe r entfr om confi nementi n a tr adi t i onal pr i s on. ” I d. at243 ( ci t i ng and quot i ng fr om U ni t ed St at es v. L at i m er , 991 F. 2d 1509, 1513 ( 9 C i r . 1993) . W e s t at ed that“pl ace m ent thT h e ap p lic a tio n b yA p p e lle e to tr a n s f e r M c C a ll p e n d in g ap p e a l is d is m is s e d a s m o o t. 7 R eques t s i n M cC al l ’ s J une 9, 2010 l ett ert o thi s C ourtnotaddr es s ed above ar e di s m i s s ed a s m o o t. 5 i n a C C C r epr es ent s m or e than a s i m pl e tr ans fer. . . [and] cr os s es the l i ne bey ond a c h a lle n g e to , f

o r e x a m p le , a g a rd e n v a ri e ty p ri s o n tr a n s f e r.” W o o d a ll, 4 3 2 F .3 d a t 2 4 3 . In c o n tra st, M c C a ll’s p e tit io n c h a llen g e s h is s e c u rityc las sif ica tio n (a c o n d iti o n o f

h is c o n f in e m e n t), an d c h a llen g e s th e re su lti n g tra n sf e r f ro m o n e p riso n to a n o th e r p riso n ; cl ai m s appr opr i at el ybr oughti n a B i vens act i on. See Leam erv. Fauver , 288 F. 3d 532, 5 4 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (w h e re c h a llen g e is to c o n d iti o n o f c o n f in e m e n t su c h th a t f

in d in g in p lain tiff’s f

a v o r w o u ldn o t alte r se n ten c e o r u n d o c o n v ictio n , civ il righ ts a c tio n is appr opr i at e) . T he D i s tr i ctC ourtpr oper l ydi s m i s s ed the pet i t i on w i thoutpr ej udi ce, and, becaus e hi s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on w as s i m pl yan ef fortt o r el i t i gat e hi s ear l i er ar gum ent s , the D i s tr i ctC ourtpr oper l ydeni ed the mot i on forr econs i der at i on. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t w ill b e su m m a rily aff i rm ed. 7