2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-4-2005 

# B a s t i s t a v . U S D ept of Ju s t ice P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-4305

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " B as t i s t a v . U S D ept of Jus t ic e " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1247. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1247CP S - 1 5 8 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 . 04- 4305

________________ RA F AE L A. S . BA S T I S T A, A ppel l ant

v. U. S . DE P AR T M E NT OF J US T I CE ; F E DE RA L BU RE AU OF P RI S ONS ; WARDE N,

US P AL L E NWOOD, T RO Y WI L L I AM S ON; T HOMAS M AR I NO

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m 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 ( M . D . Pa. C i v. N o. 04- cv- 00575 ) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le E d w in M . K o sik

_______________________________________ S u b mi t t e d F o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l Un d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) M ar ch 3, 2005 B efor e: A L I T O , M cK E E and A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: M ay4, 2005 )

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM A ppel l antR afa el B as t i s t a, a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s an or derofI n D i s tr i ctC our t , B as t i s t a fi l ed document s us i ng the name “B at i s t a. ” H e has s pel l ed 1 hi s name “B as t i s t a” i n document s fi l ed i n thi s C our t , and the docke tr efl ect s thi s s pel l i ng. 2 th e U n ited S tate s D istric t 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 ism iss in g h is p e tit io n f o r a w rit o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 . W e w ill d ism iss th is ap p ea l pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ). 1 I n hi s habea s pet i t i on, B as t i s t a s t at es thathe w as char ged w i th or ches tr at i ng an a tta c k o n a n o th e r p ri s o n e r, a n d w ith f ig h tin g w ith th a t p ri s o n e r o n a p re v io u s o c c a s io n . A h ea ri n g o ff

icer fo u n d B asti sta g u il tyo f b o th ch arg es, an d san cti o n ed h im to d isci p li n ary s egr egat i on, and the l os s of good- t i m e cr edi t s and pr i vi l eges . B as t i s t a, w ho s peaks S pan i sh, cl ai m s that he w as denied du e process becau se the ch arges w ere br ou gh tagainst hi m w i thoutadequa t e not i ce i n a l anguage thathe under s t ood. H e furthercont ends that he di d nothave a n i nt erpr et eratone of hi s hear i ngs , thatthe fi ndi ng thathe w as gui l t yof f ig h tin g w a s n o t su p p o rte d b yv a lid e v id e n c e , an d th a t h e w a s d e n ied th e o p p o rtu n ityto p re s e n t e v id e n c e o n h is b e h a lf. T he G overnm entr es ponded thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d di s m i s s the pet i t i on beca us e B as t i s t a di d notexhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . T he M agi s tr at e J udge agr eed thatB as t i s t a w as r equi r ed t o do s o, butnot ed thatthe G overnm ent ’ s decl ar at i on att es t i ng t o B as t i s t a’ s fai l ur e t o exhaus tw as uns i gned and c oul d notbe cons i der ed, and thati tw as uncl earw hetherB as t i s t a fa i l ed t o exhaus t . T he M agi s tr at e J udge di r ect ed the G overnm entt o fi l e a s uppl ement al r es pons e and pr ovi de copi es of B as t i s t a’ s gr i evanc es3

and app eal s and respon ses theret o. T he M agis trat e Judg e al so dir ect ed B ast i st a t o ad dress the i s s ue of c aus e and pr ej udi ce i n hi s r epl yi n the eve ntthe D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded that he p rocedu ral l ydefa ult ed h i s cl ai m s. Th e Go v e r n me n tf

i l e d a s u p p l e me n t a l r e s p o n s e , b u to n l yp r o v i d e d th e s a me uns i gned dec l ar at i on. T he M agi s tr at e J udge not ed thatB as t i s t a di d notdi s agr ee w i th t he d e c lar a tio n , an d c o n c lu d e d th a t h is a ttem p ts to e x h a u st w e re in su f f icie n t b e c a u se h e d id notpr oper l ypur s ue hi s appea l s t o fi nal r evi ew . T he M agi s tr at e J udge furtherfound that B as t i s t a’ s i nabi l i tyt o s peak Engl i s h di d notcons t i tut e ca us e t o excus e hi s pr ocedur al d ef au lt , an d rec o m m en d ed the d ism issal of the h ab ea s p eti ti o n . T h e D istri ct C o u rt a d o p te d th e re c o m m e n d a tio n a n d d is m is s e d th e p e titio n . T h is a p p e a l f o llo w e d . A fede r al pr i s onerm us texhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es befor e pet i t i oni ng for a w r i tof habe as corpus pur s uantt o § 2241. M os cat o v. Feder al B ur eau of Pr i s ons , 98 F. 3d 757, 760 ( 3d C i r . 1996) . W e w i l l notcons i derthe uns i gned dec l ar at i on thatthe G o v e rn m e n t s u b m itte d to s h o w th a t B a s tis ta f a ile d to e x h a u s t h is a d m in is tr a tiv e re m e d ie s . H ow ever , the tw o document s thatB as t i s t a pr ovi ded t o the D i s tr i ctC our tes t abl i s h thathe d id n o t ex h a u st. R e g a rd in g th e c h a rg e o f o rd e rin g th e a ss a u lt o f

a n o th e r in m a te, B a stista pr ovi ded the R egi onal D i r ect or ’ s deci s i on deny i ng hi s appea l of the fi ndi ng of m i s conduct . I n t he dec i s i on, the R egi onal D i r ect ors t at ed thatB as t i s t a coul d appea l t o t he G ener al C ouns el of the Feder al B ur eau of Pr i s ons . B as t i s t a al s o pr ovi ded the A dm i ni s tr at orof N at i onal I nm at e A ppeal s ’ r es pons e t o hi s r eques tforan expunge m entof4

the i nci dentr eportr el at ed t o t hi s char ge. I n deny i ng the r eques t , the A dm i ni s tr at ors t at ed thatB as t i s t a di d notappea l the R egi onal D i r ect or ’ s deni al of hi s appea l of the fi ndi ng of m is c o n d u c t. R egar di ng the fi ght i ng char ge, the R egi onal D i r ect ors t at ed i n hi s deci s i on deny i ng B as t i s t a’ s appea l of the fi ndi ng thathe or der ed an a t t ack, thathe musts epar at el yappea l th e f in d in g o f m is c o n d u c t f

o r f ig h tin g . B a s tis ta d o e s n o t m a in ta in th a t h e e v e r d id s o . Ba s t i s t a ’ s s u b mi s s i o n s e s t a b l i s h th a th e p r o c e d u r a l l yd e f a u l t e d h i s d u e p r o c e s s c l a i ms r el at ed t o the fi ndi ngs of m i s conduct . T hus , r evi ew of hi s habea s pet i t i on i s barr ed abs ent a s how i ng of ca us e and pr ej udi ce t o excus e the def aul t . M os cat o, 98 F. 3d at762. W e a g r e e wi th th e Di s tr i c tCo u r tth a tBa s t i s t a h a s n o ts h o wn c a u s e , o rth a t“ ‘ s o me obj ect i ve fa ct or ext ernal t o the defen se i m ped ed [h i s] effo rt s t o co m plyw i th the [pri son’s] p ro c e d u ra l ru le .’” W e rt s v . V a u g h n , 2 2 8 F .3 d 1 7 8 , 1 9 3 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ). I n hi s obj ect i ons t o t he M agi s tr at e J udge’ s r eport , B as t i s t a ar gued thathe does nots peak E ngl i s h, and he w as notnot i fi ed thathi s s t aff r epr es ent at i ve coul d as s i s thi m i n fi l i ng an admi ni s tr at i ve appe al . T he D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed thatthe r egul at i ons do notr equi r e s uch as s i s t ance . M or eover , bas ed upon B as t i s t a’ s demonstr at ed abi l i tyt o r epr es enthi m s el f, w e ca nnotconcl ude thathi s eff or t s t o appea l the fi ndi ngs of m i s conductw er e i m peded by a lac k o f sta f f a ss ista n c e . S e e B o n ill a v . H u rle y , 3 7 0 F .3 d 4 9 4 , 4 9 8 (6 th C ir.), c e rt. deni ed, 125 S. C t . 506 ( 2004) ( fi ndi ng pr i s oner ’ s unfami l i ar l yw i th E ngl i s h l anguage in su f f icie n t to e sta b lish c a u se to e x c u se a p ro c e d u ra l d e f a u lt, a n d n o tin g p riso n e r’s a b ili ty1 B as t i s t a’ s M ot i on R eques t i ng t o Fi l e A ppel l at e B r i ef i s deni ed. 2 5 to f ile d o c u m e n ts in s ta te c o u rt ). A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill d is m is s th is a p p e a l a s f ri v o lo u s p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ). 2