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 12-9-2005 

# D aley v . F ed B ur P ri sons 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 . 05-3887

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 author i 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 " D aley v . F e d B ur P ri s on s " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 129. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/129CP S - 6 2 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 . 05- 3887

________________________ J OHN R . DAL E Y, A ppel l ant

v. F E DE RA L BU RE AU OF P RI S ONS 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 D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D . D el . C i v. N o. 05- cv- 00215) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jo sep h J. F arn an , Jr. S u b m itted F o r P o ssible D ism issal U n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ) or P o ssible S u m m ary

A c tio n U n d e r T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 Be f o r e : BA RRY , SM I TH an d NY GA AR D, CI RCU I T J UD GES

N ovember23, 2005 ( Fi l ed D ece m ber9, 2005 ) OP I NI ON P E R C UR I AM J ohn R . D al ey , J r . appea l s pr o s e fr om an or derof the D i s t r i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ct of D el aw ar e di s m i s s i ng hi s habea s corpus pet i t i on. D al ey , w ho i s pr es ent l yi ncar cer at ed atthe Feder al C or r ect i onal I ns t i tut i on atSchuy l ki l l ( “FC I - Schuy l ki l l ”) i n M i ner s vi l l e,T he fe der al s ent ence w as i m pos ed i n connec t i on w i t h D al ey ’ s vi ol at i on of the 1 condi t i ons of a f

eder al t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e. D a ley’s n o tice o f

a p p e a l d o e s n o t cle a rlysp e c if yth e o rd e r a p p e a led . H o w e v e r, it 2 cont ai ns enough i dent i fy i ng i nform at i on t o s erve as the “f unct i onal equi val ent ” of a not i ce of appea l , and w e cons t rue i tas s uch. See M as quer ade N ovel t y , I nc. v. U ni que 2 Penns y l vani a, fi l ed a doc um entt i t l ed “A w ai t i ng C om m i t m entt o t he Feder al B ur eau of P ri s o n s a n d T h e P ro m p t C o m m itm e n t a n d D e s ig n a tio n o f F e d e ra l P ri s o n e r . . . A m endmentt o H eabe as [s i c] C orpus ” i n t he D i s t r i ctC our ti n M ar ch 2005. A tthatt i m e, D al eyw as i ncar cer at ed i n W al pol e, M as s achus ett s , havi ng j us ts erved a s t at e s ent ence and aw ai t i ng t r ans fert o a fe der al pr i s on t o compl et e a c ons ecut i ve one y earfede r al se n ten c e . In h is p e tit io n , D a ley so u g h t an o rd e r f ro m th e D istric t C o u rt to e x p e d ite h is 1 tr ans fert o fede r al cus t ody . T he D i s t r i ctC ourtcons t rued D al ey ’ s pl eadi ng as a habe as corpus pet i t i on and di s m i s s ed i tw i t houtpr ej udi ce f orl ack of

j ur i s di ct i on. D al eyfi l ed a m ot i on forr econs i der at i on, w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed. I n i t s deni al or der , the D i s tr i ctC our tal s o obs erved thatD al ey ’ s pet i t i on appea r ed t o be moot , as D al eyhad s i nce been tr ans ferr ed t o fede r al cus t odyatSC I - Schuy l ki l l . D al eyt i m el yappea l ed. A ppel l ee h a s f ile d a m o tio n f

o r s u m m a ry a f

f ir m a n c e , w h ic h D a le yo p p o s e s . A l though t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al w as w i t houtpr ej udi ce, D al ey ’ s m ot i on for r econs i der at i on and s ubs equentpl eadi ngs r efl ecthi s i nt entt o s t and on hi s pet i t i on, ther ebym aki ng t he or derfi nal and appe al abl e. See B or el l i v. C i t yof R eadi ng, 532 F. 2d 9 5 0 , 9 5 1 - 5 2 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 7 6 ) . W e , t h e r e f o r e , h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1291. A ft ercar eful l yr evi ew i ng t he r ecor d, w e conc l ude thatthe i s s ues r ai s ed on

2Indust . , Inc. , 91 2 F . 2d 66 3, 66 5-66 (3d C i r. 19 90 ) ( i nternal ci t at i on om i t t ed). W e al so

tak e n o tice o f

th e D istric t C o u rt’s o b se rv a tio n th a t, at th e tim e D a ley file d th is d o c u m e n t, no otheror derexi s t ed i n t he D i s t r i ctC our tfr om w hi ch an a ppeal coul d be t aken. See D al eyv. Feder al B ur eau of Pr i s ons , etal . , D . D el . C i v. N o. 05- 215 ( or derent er ed on Sept ember19, 2005) at4 n. 1. 3 a p p e a l p r e s e n t“ n o s u b s t a n t i a l q u e s t i o n ” u n d e rT h i r d C i r . L A R 2 7 . 4 a n d I . O . P . 1 0 . 6 . We w il l, there fo re, gran t A p p ell ee ’s m o ti o n an d su m m aril yaf firm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t. T he s ol e cl ai m r ai s ed i n D al ey ’ s pet i t i on i s thathe i s ent i t l ed t o a pr om pttr ans fer t o a fe der al pr i s on aft ers ervi ng hi s s t at e s ent ence i n M as s achus et t s . T he pet i t i on does not c h a llen g e a c o n v ictio n o r se n ten c e im p o se d b yth e D istric t C o u rt o r b ya n ysta te c o u rt in D el aw ar e and, t her efor e, does noti m pl i cat e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . §§ 2241( d) or2255. Si m i l ar l y , the D i s t r i ctC our tdoes nothave j ur i s di ct i on under § 2241( a) , as D al eyw as notconfi ned i n D el aw ar e w hen he f i l ed the pet i t i on. See R u m sfe ld v . P ad il la, 1 2 4 S . C t. 2 7 1 1 , 2 7 2 2 (20 0 4 ). A s D aley ’s pe ti ti o n d o es n o t assert anyval i d bas i s forr evi ew i n t he D i s t r i ctof D el aw ar e, and w e do noti ndepende nt l yfi nd s u c h a b a s is , w e a g re e w ith th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d is m is s a l. W e d e c lin e to c o n sid e r D a ley’s c laim s, ra ise d f o r th e f irst tim e o n a p p e a l, r egar di ng pl ace m enti n a C om m uni tyC orr ect i ons C ent erand deni al of ac ces s t o t he l aw li b rary . S ee H arris v. C ityo f P h il ad elph ia, 3 5 F . 3 d 8 4 0 , 8 4 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). F o r th e f o reg o ing rea so n s, w e w il l gran t A p p ell ee ’s m o ti o n an d su m m aril yaf firm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .4