FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT FEB 16, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 13358 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -025 66 -C V -S L B -E A B E L T R A V I E S O , P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s F E D E R A L B U R E A U O F P R I S O N S , W A R D E N , F e d e r a l C o rr e c tio n a l I n s titu tio n , T a lla d e g a , A lab a m a , D E B R A E C H O L S , L e g a l T e c h n ic ia n , F e d e r a l C o rr e c tio n a l I n s titu tio n , T a lla d e g a , A lab a m a , R e s p o n d e n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 16, 2007)2

B efo re A N D E R S O N , B A R K E T T an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A be l T r a vi e s o, af

e de r a l pr i s one rs e rvi ng a110- m onth s e nt e nc e f ordrugr e l a t e d c r i me s , f

i l e d th e p r e s e n tp e t i t i o n f o rh ab e a s c o rp u s p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 2 24 1, se eki ng re i nst at em entof a 68-day cr edi tfor t i m e over-s erved o n an earl i er s e n t e n c e . Th e w a r d e n a tCo l e ma n Fe d e r a l Co rr e c t i o n a l Co mp l e x ( “ FCC C o le m a n ” ) o r ig in a lly g r a n te d th e c r e d it w h ile T r a v ie s o w a s in c a r c e r a te d th e r e . H ow ever , w hen T ra vi es o w as tra nsfe rr ed t o the T al l adega F eder al C orre ct i on al Inst i tut i on (“ F C I T al l adega”) , autho ri t i es there re vo ked the cr edi t , concl ud i ng that the B ur e a u of

P r i s ons ( “ B O P ” ) l a c ke d a uthor i ty t o gr a ntthe c r e di ta ta l l . T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d hi s § 2241 pe t i t i on. O n appe a l , T r a vi e s o a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n de ny i ng hi s § 2241 pe t i t i on be c a us e the r e voc a t i on of the 68- days ’ cr edi tfor t i m e s erved v i ol at ed hi s due proces s r i gh t s a nd pri nci pl es of res j udi c ata a n d c o lla te r a l e s to p p e l. Ba c k g r o und I n 1993, T r a vi e s o w a s s e nt e nc e d t o 11 m onths ’ f e de r a l i m pr i s onm e ntf

or pass po rtfr aud and w as re l ea se d i n 1 99 4. In 19 99 , he pl ed gu i l ty t o d rug-re l at ed cr i m es and w as se nt ence d t o 1 10 -m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent . W hi l e i ncar ce ra t ed at F C C C ol e m a n, a uthor i t i e s not i c e d tha tT r a vi e s o ha d ove r - s e rve d hi s pa s s por tf r a ud3

s e nt e nc e by 68 da y s . T he w a r de n a tF C C C ol e m a n a w a r de d hi m a68- da y c r e di ton h i s 1 1 0 -m o n th sen t en ce t o m ak e u p fo r th e t i m e h e h ad o v er-serv ed . T rav i eso a d d itio n a lly r e q u e s te d f o u r - a n d - a - h a lf

m o n th s o f

g o o d - tim e c r e d it to c o m p e n s a te f orthe f a c ttha thi s c i vi l l i be r t i e s ha d be e n vi ol a t e d, butthi s r e que s tw a s de ni e d. I n S e p te m b e r2 0 0 3 , a f

te rb e in g tr a n s f

e rr e d to F C I T a lla d e g a , T r a v ie s o a g a in ra i se d the i ss ue of the four-and-a- hal f m on ths of cr edi the had request ed. In resp o n se t o h i s co m p l ai n t , F C I T al l ad eg a em p l o yee D eb ra E ch o l s ad v i sed T rav i eso th a t th e 6 8 - d a y c r e d it h a d b e e n im p r o p e r ly g r a n te d a n d w o u ld b e r e m o v e d . T r a vi e s o uns uc c e s s f

ul l y s oughtt o ha ve the 68- da y c r e di tr e i ns t a t e d thr ough a v a ilab le a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s . H e th e n f ile d th is § 2 2 4 1 p e titio n w h e n h is a d m in is tr a tiv e ap p e a ls w e r e d e n ie d . S tan d ard of R evi ew T he avai l abi l i ty of habeas re l i ef un der § 22 41 pres ent s aqu es t i on of l aw that we r e v i e w de no vo . C oo k v . W i ley , 208 F . 3d 1314, 1317 ( 11th C i r . 2000) D i s c u s s i on W hi l e the B O P ha s the a uthor i ty t o gr a ntc r e di tf ort i m e s e rve d pr i ort o the da t e of s e nt e nc i ng, the gr a ntof a68- da y s c r e di tt o T r a vi e s o w a s nota uthor i z e d by the r e l e va nts t a tut e . T he appl i c abl e s t a tut e r e ga r di ng c r e di tf orpr i orc us t ody , 18 U . S . C . § 3 5 8 5 (b ), p ro v i d es:4

A de f e nda nts ha l l be gi ve n c r e di tt ow ard t h e s e rvi c e of at e rm of im p r is o n m e n t f

o ra n y tim e h e h a s s p e n t in o f f ic ia l d e te n tio n p r io rto th e d at e th e sen t en ce co m m en ces– (1) as a r es ul tof the offens e f or w hi ch the se nt ence w as i m pos e d; or ( 2) a s ar e s ul tof

a n y othe rc ha r ge f

orw hi c h the de f

e nda nt w a s a rr e s t e d a f

t e rthe c om m i s s i on of the of f e ns e f or w hi c h the s e nt e nc e w a s i m pos e d; thathas notbeen cre di t ed agai nstanother s ent ence . 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 5(b). In construi ng 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 5(b), the S up re m e C ou rthas he l d tha tthe A tt orne y G e ne r a l , thr ough the B ur e a u of P r i s ons , a s oppos e d t o the d is tr ic t c o u r ts , is a u th o r iz e d to c o m p u te s e n te n c e c r e d it a w a r d s a f te rs e n te n c in g . U ni te d State s v . W

i l s on , 5 0 3 U. S. 3 2 9 , 3 3 3 - 3 5 , 1 1 2 S. Ct . 1 3 5 1 , 1 3 5 4 - 5 5 , 1 1 7 L. E d. 2d 59 3 (19 92 ). H ow ever , ac cordi ng t o the pl ai n l angu age of § 35 85 (b), T ra vi es o n everw as el i gi bl e f or a s ent ence cr edi tbase d o n the 68 days he ov er se rved. F i rs t , the det ent i on w as no ta r es ul tof hi s c urre ntoffe nse, as he ov er se rved a s ent ence for pas sportfr aud and i s c urre nt l y i ncar ce ra t ed for drug cri m es w h i ch o ccu rred aft er h i s rel ease fro m p ri so n fo r p assp o rtfrau d . A cco rd i n g l y, Tr a v i e s o d o e s n o tq u a l i f y f o rr e l i e f u n d e r§ 3 5 8 5 ( b ) ( 1 ) . M o r e o v e r , th e t i me T ra vi es o o ver- se rved w as no t“ a r es ul tof any other c harge for w hi ch [he] w as a rr e s t e d a f

t e rthe c om m i s s i on of

the of f e ns e f orw hi c h the s e nt e nc e w a s i m pos e d” be c a us e T r a vi e s o w a s nota rr e s t e d f orpa s s por tf

r a ud a f t e rc om m i tt i ng the drug o f f e n s e s f o rw h ic h h e is c u rr e n tly s e rv in g as e n te n c e . 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 5 ( b ) ( 2 ) .5

T h u s , T r a v ie s o n e v e rs h o u ld h a v e b e e n g r a n te d th e 6 8 - d a y c r e d it. T r a v ie s o h a s n o t s h o w n th a t th e B O P ’s a c tio n s in r e v o k in g th e 6 8 - d a y c r e d it vi ol at ed hi s due proces s r i gh t s. P ri son regul at i on s m aycr ea t e i nt er es t s prot ec t ed b y th e d u e p r o c e s s c la u s e . W o lff v . McD o n n e ll , 4 1 8 U .S . 5 3 9 , 5 5 6 - 5 8 , 9 4 S . C t. 2963, 2975, 41 L . E d. 2d 935 ( 1974) . T he S upr e m e C our tha s he l d tha tdue p ro cess p ro t ect i o n fo r a g o v ern m en t -created li b erty i n t eresti s l i m i t ed t o th o se s i tua t i ons w he r e de pr i va t i on of tha ti nt e r e s tl i m i t s f

r e e dom f r om r e s tr a i nta nd

“ i m po se s a typi ca l and si gn i fi ca nthardshi p o n the i nm at e i n rel at i on t o the ordi nary i nci dent s of pri son l i fe . ” Sa nd i n v. C on ner , 515 U . S . 472, 484, 115 S . C t . 2293, 23 00 , 13 2 L . E d. 2d 41 8 (19 95 ). H ow ever , i f there i s no g ov ernm ent -c re at ed r ig h t to th e in m a te ’s r e q u e s te d r e lie f , th e n p r o c e d u r a l d u e p r o c e s s is n o t im p lic a te d . Se e I d. a t487, 115 S . C t . a t2302; s e e al s o Fr anc is v . Fox , 838 F . 2d 1147, 1149- 50 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ( h o ld in g th a t a n A lab a m ala w d id n o t c r e a te alib e r ty in te r e s t in adm i ss i on t o w ork-re l ea se ). In thi s c as e, i ti s und i sput ed thatthe cr edi tw as gi ven t o T r a vi e s o i n e rr or . A s s uc h, T r a vi e s o ha d no pr ot e c t e d l i be r ty i nt e r e s ti n the c r e d it b e c a u s e it w a s n o t a u th o r iz e d b y s ta tu te , a n d h e w a s n o t e n title d to it. Sa n d in , 5 1 5 U .S . at 4 8 4 -8 8 , 1 1 5 S . C t. at 2 3 0 0 -0 2 . M o re o v er , th e B O P ’s a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d y p r o c e s s p r o v id e d T r a v ie s o w ith a n y r e q u ir e d d u e p r o c e s s . I d. a t 4 8 7 , 1 1 5 S . C t. a t 2 3 0 2 .6

F ur the rm or e , the de c i s i on of the w a r de n of

F C C C ol e m a n doe s notha ve prec l usi ve ef

fe ctun der r e s j udi c ata o r co l l at eral est o p p el p ri n ci p l es. T rav i eso a r gue s tha tthe de c i s i on t o a w a r d ac r e di tof 68 da y s w a s a n a dm i ni s tr a t i ve proceedi ng i n w hi ch the w ar den act ed i n a j ud i ci al capaci ty, and i s there fore ent i t l ed t o p re cl usi ve ef fe ctun der r e s ju d ic a ta pri nci pl es . T he do ctri ne of res j udi c ata m aybe appl i cabl e t o adm i ni stra t i ve agenci es , bu ton l y w here an adm i ni stra t i ve agency “ i s a ct i ng i n a j ud i ci al capaci ty a nd re sol ved d i sput ed i ss ues o f f a c t p r o p e r ly b e f

o r e it w h ic h th e p a r tie s h a v e h a d a n a d e q u a te o p p o r tu n ity to l i t i gat e. ” U

ni te d State s v . Utah C ons t . & Mi ni ng C o. , 3 8 4 U .S . 3 9 4 , 4 2 1 , 8 6 S . C t. 1545, 1560, 162 L . E d. 2d 642 ( 1966) . I f the f orm a l i ty of

a n a dm i ni s tr a t i ve p r o c e e d in g is s u f

f ic ie n tly d im in is h e d , r e s j udi c ata m a y n o t ap p ly . L ake L uc e r ne C iv ic A s s ’ n , I

n c . v . D o lp h in S ta d iu m C o r p ., 87 8 F . 2d 13 60 , 13 67 -68 (11 th C i r. 1 9 8 9 ) . “I t f

o llo w s th a t a n a g e n c y p r o c e e d in g w h ic h d o e s n o t a f f o r d a n o p p o r tu n ity t o pr e s e ntl i ve w i tne s s e s ort o c r os s - e xa m i ne oppos i ng w i tne s s e s doe s notm e e tthe t es tthatthe part i es w er e a ff orded a ful l op po rtun i ty t o l i t i gat e. ” C i t y of P om pano Be a c h v . FA A , 774 F . 2d 1529, 1538 n. 10 ( 11th C i r . 1985) . I n thi s c a s e , the pr oc e dur e f

orgr a nt i ng T r a vi e s o’ s c r e di tne ve ra l l ow e d f orthe pr e s e nt a t i on of

l i ve w itn e s s e s . A c c o r d in g ly , r e s j udi c ata d o e s n o t ap p ly . I d. T he doc tr i ne of

c ol l a t e r a l e s t oppe l i s r e l a t e d t o r e s ju d ic a ta . T o c l a i m the7

be ne f i tof c ol l a t e r a l e s t oppe l , the pa r ty r e l y i ng on the doc tr i ne m us ts how tha t( 1) the i s s ue a ts t a ke i s the s a m e a s “ the one i nvol ve d i n the pr i orpr oc e e di ng, ( 2) the i s s ue w a s a c tua l l y l i t i ga t e d i n the pr i orpr oc e e di ng, ( 3) the de t e rm i na t i on of the i s s ue i n the pr i orl i t i ga t i on w a s ac r i t i c a l a nd ne c e s s a ry pa r tof the j udgm e nti n the fi rstact i o n , an d (4 ) th e p arty ag ai n stw h o m co l l at eral est o p p el i s assert ed m u st have had a ful l and fai r opp ortun i ty t o l i t i gat e the i ss ue i n the pri or proceedi ng . ” P le m i ng v . U

ni v e rs al- R undle C or

p. , 14 2 F . 3d 13 54 , 13 59 (11th C i r. 19 98 ). In det erm i ni ng w hen an i ss ue has been “ ac tual l y l i t i gat ed, ” the P le m i ng C ou rtci t ed w ith ap p r o v a l th e R e s ta te m e n t's f o rm u la tio n th a t “[ w ]h e n a n is s u e is p r o p e r ly r a is e d , b y th e p le a d in g s o ro th e rw is e , a n d is s u b m itte d f o rd e te rm in a tio n , a n d is det erm i ned, the i ss ue i s a ctual l y l i t i gat ed. ” I d. ( quot i ng R e s t a t e m e nt( S e c ond) of J udgm e nt s § 27 c m t . d ( 1982) ) . T he que s t i on of w he the rT r a vi e s o s houl d r e c e i ve the 68 -daycr edi tw as no tl i t i gat ed w hen i tw as i ni t i al l y gra nt ed because , ra ther tha n be i ng r a i s e d by T r a vi e s o a nd s ubm i tt e d f orde t e rm i na t i on, F C C C ol e m a n pr i s on a uthor i t i e s di s c ove r e d on the i row n tha tT r a vi e s o ha d ove r - s e rve d hi s pr i or se nt ence and aut om at i ca l l y app l i ed the 68 -daycr edi t . A cc ordi ng l y, col l at er al e s to p p e l d o e s n o t ap p ly . T o the e xt e ntT r a vi e s o r a i s e s a n e qui t abl e e s t oppe l a r gum e nt , he m us tpr ove f oure l e m e nt s : “ ( 1) w or ds , c onduc t , ora c qui e s c e nc e tha ti nduc e d r e l i a nc e ; ( 2)We h avequ e sti on e d whether e stopp e l c an even b ea pp lie d ag ains t th eg ov ernment. See 1 Savoury v. U.S. Att'y Gen. , 449 F.3d 1307, 1318 ( 11th Cir. 2006) (“[I ]tis far f rom clea r that the do c trineof

e quita blee stopp e l ma

y e ven b ea

pp lie d ag ains t a

g ov ernment ag ency . TheSup reme Court has never held that it may be.”) . 8 w i l l f ul ne s s orne gl i ge nc e w i th r e ga r d t o the a c t s , c onduc t , ora c qui e s c e nc e ; ( 3) detri m ent al re l i ance ; and (4) aff i rm at i ve m i sc on du ctby the go vernm ent . ” U ni ted S ta te s v . Mc C o rkle , 321 F . 3d 1292, 1297 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . A f f i rm a t i ve m is c o n d u c t r e q u ir e s m o r e th a n g o v e rn m e n ta l n e g lig e n c e o rin a c tio n . I d. T rav i eso c a n n o t p r o v e a f

f irm a tiv e m is c o n d u c t b y th e g o v e rn m e n t. T h e B O P m e r e ly c o rr e c te d a n e rr o rm a d e b y th e w a r d e n a t F C C C o le m a n . E v e n if g e n e r a lly ap p lic ab le to ag o v e rn m e n t a g e n c y , e q u itab le e s to p p e l d o e s n o t ap p ly in th is c a s e . 1 T h u s , th e d i s tr i c tc o u r tc o rr e c t l y d e n i e d T r a v i e s o ’ s § 2 2 4 1 p e t i t i o n a n d we a f f i rm. AF F I RME D.