2008 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 10-24-2008 

# Lee v . W i lli amson 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 . 07-4838

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_2008

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 2008 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 " L e e v . W i ll i am s on" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 328. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/328NOT 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. 07- 4838

___________ M I LES ORLA ND O LEE, A ppel l ant

v. T RO Y WI L L I AM S ON

____________________________________ 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 A ct i on N o. 07- cv- 01117) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jo h n E . Jo n es, II I

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember26, 2008 B efor e: M cK E E , SM I T H and C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l e: O ct ober24, 2008)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM M i l es O r l ando Lee, a fe der al pr i s oner , appea l s an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a deny i ng hi s 28 U . S. C . § 2241 p e t i t i o n f o ra wr i to f

h a b e a s c o rp u s . W e wi l l a f f i r m.T o the ext entthatL ee a l l eged thatthe deni al of pl ace m enti n the drug tr eatm ent 1 pr ogr am depr i ved hi m of el i gi bi l i tyfora s ent ence r educt i on, the M agi s tr at e J udge found th a t, w h ile c o g n iz a b le in a h a b e a s p e titio n , th e c la im h a d n o t b e e n p ro p e rl ye x h a u s te d . L ee a r gued thathe w as unabl e t o exhaus tthe cl ai m due t o “l os s of pr opertyby[pr i s on] s t aff ” and be caus e of the fe arhe has forhi s l i fe i n pr i s on. G ener al l y , a fe der al pr i s oner m us texhaus tavai l abl e r emedi es befor e fi l i ng a pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus p u rsua n t t o § 2 2 4 1 . S ee M o sca to v . F ed . B u rea u o f P ri so n s, 9 8 F . 3 d 7 5 7 , 7 6 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). T h e e x h a u stio n re q u ire m e n t, ho w e v e r, m a yb e e x c u se d if a n ya ttem p t to o b tain reli ef w o u ld b e f

u ti le. S ee S ch an d elm eier v . C u n n ing h am , 8 1 9 F . 2 d 5 2 , 5 3 (3d C ir . 1986) . I n thi s cas e, l os s of pr opertyand fe aras s oci at ed w i th bei ng hous ed i n a hi gh s e c u ri ty p ri s o n d o n o t r e n d e r e x h a u s tio n o f th e a d m in is tr a tiv e p ro c e s s f u tile . 2 In h is p e tit io n , L e e a lleg e d th a t h e w a s tra n sf e rre d in to a h ig h se c u rityin stitu tio n in r et al i at i on forfi l i ng admi ni s tr at i ve compl ai nt s and a l aw s ui t , thathe w as deni ed pl ace m enti n a drug tr eatm entpr ogr am t hatw as r ecomm ended byhi s s ent enci ng j udge, and thathe nee ded i m m edi at e medi cal and ps y chol ogi cal tr eatm ent . T he mat t erw as r efe rr ed t o a M agi s tr at e J udge, w ho concl uded thatL ee’ s cl ai m s w er e notcogni zabl e i n a habea s pet i t i on beca us e theychal l enged hi s condi t i ons of conf i nement , notthe val i di tyof hi s det ent i on. A ccor di ngl y , the M agi s tr at e J udge r ecomm ended thatthe pet i t i on be 1 deni ed. I n hi s r es pons e t o t he M agi s tr at e J udge’ s R eportand R ecomm endat i on, L ee r ai s ed an a ddi t i onal cl ai m i nvol vi ng the B ur eau of Pr i s on’ s al l egedl yi m pr opercal cul at i on of hi s s ent ence . B yor derent er ed Sept ember28, 2007, the D i s tr i ctC our tadopt ed the R ep o rtan d R ec o m m en d ati o n an d d ism issed L ee ’s § 2 2 4 1 p eti ti o n . T h e D istri ct C o u rt a g re e d w ith th e M a g istra te J u d g e ’s r e c o m m e n d a tio n re g a rd in g th e c laim s p re se n ted in L ee’ s i ni t i al § 2241 pet i t i on and conc l uded thatL ee c oul d pr es enthi s s ent ence cal cul at i onA not i ce of appea l i n a ci vi l cas e i n w hi ch the U ni t ed St at es i s a partym us tbe fi l ed 2 w i thi n s i xtyda y s a ft e rthe or de ra pp e a l e d f r om i s e nt e r e d. Se e Fe d. R. A pp . P. ( 4) ( a) ( 1) ( A ) . T he t i m e l i m i t s pr es cr i bed i n Fed. R . A pp. P. ( 4) ( a) ar e mandat oryand j ur i s di ct i onal . B ow l es v. R us s el l , – U . S. –, 127 S. C t . 2360, 2366 ( 2007) . L ee’ s not i ce of appea l w as fi l ed on D ece m ber1, 2007, s i xty - fourday s aft erthe entryof the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s or der deny i ng hi s § 2241 pet i t i on. T w el ve day s aft erthe entryof the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s or der , how ever , L ee f i l ed a doc um entt i t l ed “M ot i on fora C ert i fi cat e of A ppeal abi l i ty . ” B eca us e Lee s peci fi cal l ys t at ed i n thatm ot i on thathe w ant ed t o appea l th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r d e n y in g h is § 2 2 4 1 p e tit io n , w e w ill tre a t th e m o tio n a s a tim e ly n o ti ce o f a p p ea l. S ee M asq u era d e N o v eltyv . U n iqu e In d u s. , 9 1 2 F . 2 d 6 6 3 , 6 6 5 (3d C ir . 1990) ( w her e cont ent s of document s fi l ed w i thi n appea l per i od cont ai n i nform at i on re q u ire d b yru le g o v e rn in g n o tice o f a p p e a l, pa rtyw ill b e d e e m e d to h a v e c o m p lied w ith the rul e and c as e w i l l notbe di s m i s s ed forl ack of appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on) ; Fi t zs i m m ons v. Y eage r , 391 F. 2d 849, 853 ( 3d C i r . 1968) ( tr eat i ng an appl i cat i on fora ce r t i fi cat e of pr obabl e ca us e, fi l ed bef or e the dea dl i ne t o appea l the deni al of habe as r el i ef, as a not i ce o f a p p ea l) . 3 cl ai m i n a new § 2241 pet i t i on. L ee appeal ed. 2 W e agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our tthatL ee’ s cl ai m s conce rni ng r et al i at i on, deni al of pl ace m enti n t he drug tr eatm entpr ogr am, and medi cal needs do notl i e atthe “c or e of h ab ea s” a n d , there fo re, are n o t cog n izab le i n a § 2 2 4 1 p eti ti o n . S ee L ea m er v . F au v er, 288 F. 3d 532, 542- 44 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . I ndeed, none of Lee’ s cl ai m s chal l enge the fa ctor l ength of hi s s ent ence orconfi nement . See Pr ei s erv. R odr i guez, 411 U . S. 475, 500 ( 1973) . B eca us e Lee’ s al l egat i ons pert ai n onl yt o the condi t i ons of hi s confi nement , t he D is tr ic t C o u rt p ro p e rl yd is m is s e d th e m . Af t e rth e Re p o r ta n d Re c o mme n d a t i o n wa s i s s u e d , Le e a s s e r t e d f o rth e f i r s tt i me thathi s s ent ence w as i m pr oper l ycal cul at ed. R atherthan dee m the cl ai m w ai ved, s ee M ar s hal l v. C hat er , 75 F. 3d 1421, 1426 ( 10th C i r . 1996) , r ecomm i tthe mat t ert o the4

M agi s tr at e J udge, s ee 28 U . S. C . § 636( b) ( 1) , cons true the cl ai m as a mot i on t o amend t he pet i t i on, s ee U ni t ed St at es v. R i as cos , 76 F. 3d 93, 94 ( 5th C i r . 1996) , oraddr es s the m er i t s , s ee U ni t ed St at es v. H ow el l , 231 F. 3d 615, 621- 22 ( 9th C i r . 2000) , the D i s tr i ct C o u rtesse n ti all yd ism issed the c lai m w ith o u t prejud ice, co n clud ing that L ee co u ld as sert it in a n e w § 2 2 4 1 p e titio n . Im p o rt a n tly, h o w e v e r, u n d e r t h e a b u s e o f th e w ri t d o c tr in e , a pet i t i onerm aynotr ai s e cl ai m s i n a new § 2241 pet i t i on thatcoul d have be en r es ol ved i n a pr evi ous act i on. See Zay as v. I N S, 311 F. 3d 247, 256 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ; s ee a l s o M cC l es key v . Z a n t, 49 9 U .S . 4 6 7 , 4 8 3 -8 6 (1 9 9 1 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt f a iled to c o n sid e r w h a t ef f e c t, i f any , the abus e of the w r i tdoctr i ne w oul d have on Lee’ s abi l i tyt o as s erthi s s ent ence cal cul at i on cl ai m i n a s ubs equent§ 2241 pet i t i on. W e nee d notdet erm i ne w hetherthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed, how ever , beca us e Lee’ s s ent enci ng cal cul at i on cl ai m has been adj udi cat ed on the mer i t s i n a s epar at e § 2241 pr ocee di ngs br oughti n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Loui s i ana. See Lee v. K eff er , C i v. A ct i on N o. 0 7 -1 8 7 3 (W .D . L a .). In th a t ca se , the D istric t C o u rt h e ld th a t L e e f a iled to d e m o n stra te th a t h is f e d e ra l se n ten c e sh o u ld ru n c o n c u rre n tlyw ith a p re v io u sly -im p o se d sta te s ent ence . L ee i s pr ecl uded fr om r ai s i ng the s ent enci ng cal cul at i on cl ai m agai n. See Q u e e n v . M in e r, 5 3 0 F .3 d 2 5 3 , 2 5 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (h o ld in g th a t D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly d is m is s e d c la im s in § 2 2 4 1 p e titio n th a t h a d b e e n d e c id e d in p re v io u s h a b e a s a c tio n ). In h is In f o rm a l B rie f

, L e e a lleg e s f

o r th e f irst tim e th a t “th re e m isc o n d u c ts th a t I w a s f o u n d g u ilty o f

. . . w e re a g a in s t p o lic y. . . [ a n d ] w e re to o e x c e s s iv e in p u n is h m e n t.”B eca us e thi s al l egat i on w as notr ai s ed i n the D i s tr i ctC our t , w e w i l l notcons i deri ton

a p p e a l. S e e H a rr is v . C ity o f P h ila d e lp h ia , 3 5 F .3 d 8 4 0 , 8 4 5 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.

5