DL D- 2 2 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. 09- 4527

___________ B U W L U S A . M U H A M M A D , A ppel l ant v . U S M A R S H A L S S E R V IC E ; M A R S H A L L B IL L D O E (L N U ); DEPU TY W AR DEN VI NC ENT K AN NI NE; ATTY . DA VI D A . SCHRO EDER

____________________________________ 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 W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 07- 00027) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M a u ric e B . C o h ill

____________________________________ S u b mi tt e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) o r S u m m a ry A c tio n 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 24, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, J O R D A N and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J une 30, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM Fol l ow i ng a Penns y l vani a convi ct i on fort err or i s t i c thr eat s , B uw l us M uhamm ad began s ervi ng hi s s ent ence of 18- 60 m onths atSC I - Sm i thfi el d. I n J ul y2005, M uhamm adT he D i s tr i ctC ourts um m ar i zed M uhamm ad’ s al l egat i ons as fol l ow s : “Pl ai nt i ff 1 m ai nt ai ns thatas a r es ul tof thi s unl aw ful i ncar cer at i on atE r i e C ountyPr i s on . . . he has s uffe r ed harm w hi ch cons t i tut es atypi cal and s i gni fi canthar ds hi p . . . [i ncl udi ng] bei ng cl as s i fi ed as a maxi m um s ecur i typr i s oner ; bei ng i nel i gi bl e forr eas s i gnm ent s ortr ans fer t o l es s than maxi m um s ecur i tyand trus t ee s t atus ; bei ng i nel i gi bl e fors tudyr el eas e and w ork r el eas e pr ogr ams . . . [and] thatdue t o hi s unus ual s t atus , he has notr ece i ved nee ded d e n ta l a n d m e d ic a l c a re d u ri n g th is p e ri o d .” W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. 2 2 w as tr ans ferr ed, pur s uantt o a fe der al w r i tof habe as corpus ad pr os equendum i s s ued by the D i s tr i ctC ourt , t o E r i e C ountyPr i s on t o fac e fe der al cr i m i nal char ges . M uhamm ad fi l ed thi s ci vi l r i ght s s ui ti n February2007 agai ns tvar i ous i ndi vi dual s forcons t i tut i onal v io latio n s h e b e liev e d o c c u rre d a s a re su lt o f th e tem p o ra rytra n sf

e r to E rie C o u n ty Pr i s on. 1 T he D i s tr i ctC ourtgr ant ed the U . S. M ar s hal s Servi ce’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s the co m p lai n t on so v ere ign im m u n ityg rou n d s. L ater, itg ran ted U . S . M arsh al B il l D o e’s m ot i on t o di s m i s s on abs ol ut e quas i - j udi ci al i m m uni tygr ounds . Fi nal l y , the D i s tr i ct C ourtgr ant ed the mot i ons fors um m aryj udgm entfi l ed byV i ncentK anni ne, w ho w as then D ep u tyW ard en at E ri e C o u n tyP ri so n , an d D av id S ch roe d er, w h o w as M u h am m ad ’s court - appoi nt ed att orney . M uhamm ad appe al ed. 2 B yC ler k ’s o rd e r d a ted A p ril 1 2 , 2 0 1 0 , w e g ra n ted M u h a m m a d lea v e to p ro c e e d in fo rm a p au p eris (I F P ) on ap p ea l and d ir ec ted th e w ard en at S C I-C resso n (M u h am m ad ’s c u rre n t p lac e o f

in c a rc e ra tio n ) to b e g in p e rio d ic w ith d ra w a ls f ro m M u h a m m a d ’s in m a teH a v in g g ra n ted M u h a m m a d lea v e to p ro c e e d in f o rm a p a u p e ris, w e m u st d ism iss h is 3 appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) i f i thas no ar guabl e bas i s i n l aw . See N eit zk e v . W il li am s, 4 9 0 U . S . 3 1 9 , 3 2 5 (19 8 9 ). A lt ern ati v ely , w e m aysu m m aril yaf firm the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s j udgm enti f M uhamm ad’ s appea l fai l s t o pr es enta s ubs t ant i al ques t i on. See LA R 27. 4; I . O . P. 10. 6. 3 tru st a c c o u n t in o rd e r to c o v e r th e $ 4 5 5 f ili n g f e e . A f terth e in iti a l w ith d ra w a l, 3 M uhamm ad moved i n thi s C ourt“t o di s cont i nue the deduc t i on fee [s i c] , and furtheror der th e C ler k o f

C o u rt’s o f

f ice f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P A to re im b u rse a ll m o n e yto Pl ai nt i ff’ s pr i s on acc ount . ” I n an or derdat ed M ay6, 2010, the C l erk defe rr ed rul i ng on th e m o tio n a n d w a rn e d M u h a m m a d th a t h e w o u ld b e re q u ire d to p a yth e f u ll $ 4 5 5 f

e e in i ns t al l m ent s even i f the appe al w as vol unt ar i l ydi s m i s s ed. See Port erv. D ept . of T re a su ry , 5 6 4 F .3 d 1 7 6 , 1 7 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) (“ It is o f n o c o n se q u e n c e w h e th e r a n a p p e a l is v o lu n tar ilyd ism iss e d , d ism iss e d d u e to a ju risd ictio n a l d e f e c t, ord ism iss e d o n th e m e rits

- appel l ant s ar e notent i t l ed t o the r eturn of thei rfi l i ng and docke t i ng fee s . ”) . M uhamm ad w as al s o di r ect ed t o not i fythi s C ourtw hetherhe w i s hed t o pr ocee d w i th hi s appea l des pi t e the w arni ng. M uhamm ad r es ponded t o the M ay6, 2010 C l erk’ s or derbyfi l i ng a “mot i on for i nj unct i ve r el i ef a nd a r es tr ai ni ng or der , ” cl ai m i ng that“[t ] he admi ni s tr at i ve pr ocedur al m eans of deduc t i ng 20% fr om Pl ai nt i ff’ s per s onal funds and pr i s on acc ountcaus e a s ubs t ant i al atypi cal and s i gni fi canthar ds hi p. ” M uhamm ad att ache d t o hi s m ot i on a M ay 2010 trus tacc ounts t at ement , w hi ch i ndi cat ed thatthe w ar den’ s m os tr ece ntw i thdr aw al c a u se d M u h a m m a d ’s a c c o u n t to h a v e a n e g a tiv e b a lan c e . M u h a m m a d sta ted in h is4

m o tio n th a t h e “ re a lize s th a t h e m u st p a yf o r th e f ili n g f e e c o st,” b u t th a t h e sh o u ld n o n e th e les s “ h a v e th e rig h t to m a n a g e a n d c o n tro l h is p e rso n a l f u n d s in a w a yth a t w o u ld a llo w h im to p re s e rv e h is d ig n ity a n d re s p o n s ib iliti e s .” W e inf er f rom M u h am m ad ’s fil ing that h e w ishe s to p u rsue h is ap p ea l. B ef o re ad d ressing the m erit s o f th e a p p ea l, w e w il l exp lai n w h yw e m u st de n yb o th M u h am m ad ’s m ot i on t o di s cont i nue I FP fee deduc t i ons , and hi s r el at ed r eques tfori nj unct i ve r el i ef. U nderthe Pr i s on L i t i gat i on R eform A ct , Pub. L . N o. 104- 135, 110 St at . 1321 ( A pr i l 26, 1996) ( the PL R A ) , al l pr i s oner s w ho fi l e I FP ci vi l act i ons m us tpaythe as s oci at ed fi l i ng fee s . 28 U . S. C . § 1915( b) ( 1) . R el evantt o thi s cas e, “the fe e for d o c k e tin g a n a p p e a l is $ 4 5 5 , w h ic h is p a id to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt .” P o rt e r, 5 6 4 F .3 d a t 1 7 9 . “Paym entof the ful l fee m aybe s pr ead ove ra numberof m onthl ypaym ent s . ” H agan v. R o g e rs, 5 7 0 F .3 d 1 4 6 , 1 5 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). In th a t sc e n a rio , an in iti a l p a rtial f e e is as s es s ed bas ed on one of tw o al t ernat i ve metr i cs , and “w hen funds exi s t ” i n the as s es s ed a m o u n t th e ya re c o lle c te d f ro m th e p ri s o n e r’ s a c c o u n t b yth e w a rd e n . 2 8 U .S .C . § 1915( b) ( 1) . T her eaf

t er , “the pr i s onerm us tm ake monthl ypaym ent s equal t o 20 per cent of the pr ece di ng m onth’ s i ncome cr edi t ed t o the ac countt o be forw ar ded w hen the pr i s oner ’ s acc ountbal ance exce eds t en dol l ar s . ” Tay l orv. D el at oor e, 281 F. 3d 844, 847 (9th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) (cit ing 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (b)(2 )). A s m ent i oned above , the i ni t i al part i al fee w as col l ect ed i n A pr i l 2010. A tthe end of the fol l ow i ng m onth, M uhamm ad had a n acc ountbal ance of $23. 04. B ecaus e the5

bal ance exce eded t en dol l ar s , the w ar den atSC I - C r es s on col l ect ed a pr evi ous l yas s es s ed amountof $25. 07, r es ul t i ng i n a nega t i ve ac countbal ance . M uhamm ad cont ends thatthe w ard en sh o u ld n o t be a b le t o o v erd raf t his acc o u n t, an d that b ec au se o f th e w ard en ’s accou nt w i thd raw al s M uh am m ad is being de pri ved of h i s abi l i tyt o p ayfor ph on e cal l s, cabl e, pos t age, phot ocopi es , and the l i ke. W e fi r s tnot e thatM uhamm ad’ s M ay2010 acc ounts t at ementi ndi cat es thathe s pends the maj or i tyof hi s m oneyatthe pr i s on comm i s s ary . B efor e i ni t i at i ng a l aw s ui tor an ap peal, the P L R A cou nsel s that M uh am m ad m ustw ei gh the co st s of l i t i gati on against hi s des i r e t o fr equentthe pr i s on comm i s s ary . See, e. g. , M urr ayv. D os al , 150 F. 3d 814, 818 ( 8th C i r . 1998) ( “The [PL R A ’ s ] fee r equi r ement s pr ovi de ec onom i c i ncent i ves that r equi r e pr i s oner s t o ‘ s t op and thi nk’ befor e fi l i ng s ui t . ”) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed) . I n addi t i on, ther e i s nothi ng i n the PL R A thatpr event s a w ar den fr om w i thdr aw i ng funds fr om an i nm at e ac count , aft erthe i ni t i al part i al fee i s col l ect ed, s o l ong as ther e i s a bal ance of at l eas t$10. 01. I ti s M uhamm ad’ s duty , notthe w ar den’ s , t o ens ur e thathe mai nt ai ns an acc ountbal ance s uffi ci entt o m ake the mont hl ypaym ent s . See Luci en v. D eTel l a, 141 F. 3d 773, 776 ( 7th C i r . 1998) . Forthes e r eas ons , M uhamm ad’ s m ot i on t o di s cont i nue I FP fee deduc t i ons and hi s r eques tfori nj unct i ve r el i ef a r e deni ed. T urni ng t o the mer i t s of M uhamm ad’ s appea l , w e conc l ude thati tpr es ent s no s u b s ta n tia l q u e s tio n a n d th a t th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t s h o u ld b e s u m m a ri ly af f irm e d . T he D i stri ctC ou rtdid not err i n g rant i ng the U . S . M ars hals S ervi ce’s m oti on t o d i sm i ss6

on s over ei gn i m m uni tygr ounds , as no w ai verof the age ncy ’ s abs ol ut e i m m uni tyfr om s ui tw as pr es ent . See B enef i ci al C ons um erD i s countC o. v. Pol t onow i cz, 47 F. 3d 91, 94 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( “an a gencyof the U ni t ed St at es [] i s . . . s hi el ded fr om pr i vat e ac t i ons u n les s s o v e re ig n im m u n ityh a s b e e n w a iv e d .”). T h e D istric t C o u rt a lso d id n o t er r in gr ant i ng D oe’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s on i m m uni tygr ounds forhi s r ol e i n eff ectuat i ng the fede r al w r i tof habe as corpus ad pr os equendum. See H ami l t on v. L eavy , 322 F. 3d 776, 782- 83 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( A n “ac t i on t aken pur s uantt o a fa ci al l yval i d courtor derr ece i ves a b so lu te im m u n ityf

ro m § 1 9 8 3 law su its f

o r d a m a g e s.” ). F in a lly , the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t e rrin g ra n tin g th e m o tio n s f o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t f ile d b yK a n n in e a n d S c h ro e d e r. B oth K anni ne orSchr oederar e i m m une fr om s ui tforthei rr ol es i n havi ng M uhamm ad tr ans ferr ed t o E r i e C ountyPr i s on. See i d. A nd fors ubs t ant i al l ythe r eas ons gi ven i n the O ct ober27, 2009 m emora ndum opi ni on, the undi s put ed mat er i al fac t s of thi s cas e do not demonstr at e the exi s t ence an Ei ghth A m endmentvi ol at i on ( bas ed on al l eged medi cal negl ect ) attr i but abl e t o K anni ne. A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill su m m a rilya f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.