2010 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 2-18-2010 

# C h arles M urr a y v . J. Grondol sky 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 . 09-3986

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_2010

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 2010 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 " C h arle s M

urr a y v . J . Gr ondo l sk

y " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1865. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1865AL D- 1 0 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- 3986

___________ CH AR L E S F . M UR RA Y, A ppel l ant v . J. G R O N D O L S K Y , W ard en ; J. K N O X , U n itM an ag er; J . O R D O N E Z , C as e M anage r ; L . B A T I ST E , C or r ect i onal C ouns el or

____________________________________ 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 rt h e D i s t r i c to f

N e w J e r s e y ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 1: 09- cv- 03183) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J os eph E. I r enas

____________________________________ S u b m itte d f

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 anuary28, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A M B R O and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: February18, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM C h arles M u rray , p roc ee d ing p ro se , ap p ea ls from the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord ers di s m i s s i ng hi s cas e and de ny i ng hi s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on, r es pect i vel y . B eca us e the appea l does notpr es enta s ubs t ant i al ques t i on, w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m t he D i s t r i ctW hen pr es ent ed w i t h t he form , M ur r ayat t empt ed t o chal l enge the pr ovi s i on by 1 amendi ng t he l anguage t o s t at e thathe w oul d onl ym ake pa ym ent s “w hen author i zed unders t atut or yl aw orcode of fede r al r egul at i ons . ” The B O P t her eaf t erchar ged and s anct i oned M ur r ayw i t h for geryand count er fei tof an of fi ci al document . A s a r es ul tof this i n cide n t, M u rrayfil ed a p eti ti o n fo r ha b ea s co rpu s p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 4 1 . In t hi s compl ai nt , w hi ch i s curr ent l ypendi ng i n t he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey , M ur r ayhas ask ed the D istri ct C o u rtto o rde r th e B O P to rev erse it s fin d ing s o f f o rge ryan d to restore al l pr i vi l eges t hatw er e l os tas s anct i ons . See D . N . J . 1: 09- cv- 4347. 2 C our t ’ s or der s . See 3d C i r . L A R 27. 4; 3d C i r . I . O . P. 10. 6. I. I n J une 2009, M ur r ayfi l ed a pr o s e pet i t i on under28 U . S. C . § 1361 fora w r i tof m andamus i n t he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey , s eeki ng an or dert o compel fede r al pr i s on o f f ic ia ls to a u th o ri z e h is p re -r e le a s e tr a n s f e r t o a R e s id e n tia l R e -E n tr yC e n te r ( “ R R C ” ). In hi s com plai nt, M urr ayal l eged t hat w hil e he h ad b een ap proved for a pre- rel ease t r ans fert o an R R C , he w as i nform ed thatt he tr ans ferw as depende ntupon hi s exec ut i ng a C o m m u n ityB a se d A g re e m e n t F o rm . T h is f o rm in c lu d e s a p ro v isio n th a t M u rra yw o u ld agr ee t o m ake pa ym ent s t o contr i but e t o t he cos tof the r es i dence . M ur r aychal l enged that t erm of the agr eement , as s er t i ng t hatal l expens es at t endantt o hi s i ncar cer at i on m us tbe p a id o u t o f

th e U n ited S tate s T re a su ry , p u rsu a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 4 0 0 7 , an d th a t h e is exemptfr om pay i ng anycos tof i ncar cer at i on fee , pur s uantt o 28 C . F. R . § 505. 3. M ur r ay al s o ar gued thathi s fai l ur e t o exhaus tadmi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es pr i ort o fi l i ng t he compl ai nts houl d be exc us ed, as exhaus t i on w oul d be “a n exer ci s e i n fut i l i t y ” and the tim e lo st d u rin g th e a d m in istra tiv e a p p e a l p ro c e ss w o u ld b e h ig h lyp re ju d icia l. 13

T he D i stri ctC ou rti nterpret ed M urr ay ’s peti t i on for a w ri tof m and am us as a pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus under28 U . S. C . § 2241. O n J ul y10, 2009, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed M ur r ay ’ s pet i t i on s ua s pont e forfai l ur e t o exhaus tadmi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es . T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o found that , t o t he ext entfai l ur e t o exhaus tcoul d be excus ed, M ur r ay ’ s pet i t i on i s w i t houtm er i tbeca us e the B ur eau of Pr i s ons ( “B O P”) act ed w i t hi n i t s s t atut or yauthor i t yi n condi t i oni ng pr e- r el eas e tr ans ferupon exec ut i on of a C o m m u n ityB ase d P rog ram A g ree m en t. O n S ep tem b er 2 8 , 2 0 0 9 , the D istri ct C o u rt deni ed M ur r ay ’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on. M ur r aynow appea l s t o t hi s C our tfr om t he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s Jul y10 and S eptem ber 28 o rder s. II. W e hav e j uri sdi ct i on ov er this app eal pu rs uan tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 29 1, and exerci se pl enaryr evi ew overt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al . See St ehneyv. Per r y , 101 F. 3d 925, 9 2 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ); W o o d all v . F ed . B u rea u o f P ri so n s, 4 3 2 F . 3 d 2 3 5 , 2 3 9 n . 3 (3d C ir . 2005) . W e gene r al l yr evi ew a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on on a mot i on forr econs i der at i on for abus e of di s cr et i on. M ax’ s Seafood Café e x r el . L ou- A nn, I nc. v. Q ui nt er os , 176 F. 3d 6 6 9 , 6 7 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). S u m m a rya c tio n is w a rra n ted w h e n n o su b sta n tial q u e stio n is pr es ent ed on appe al . See 3d C i r . L A R 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6. M u rr a yf ile d h is p e titio n f

o r a w ri t o f

m a n d a m u s p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 6 1 . A di s t r i ctcour thas j ur i s di ct i on overm andamus a ct i ons “t o compel an off i cerorempl oy ee of the U ni t ed St at es oranyagenc yt her eof t o per form a dutyow ed t o t he pl ai nt i ff. ” 28W e not e thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tt r eat ed M ur r ay ’ s pet i t i on as a pet i t i on forw r i tof 2 habea s corpus i ns t ead of a pet i t i on form andamus. T hi s C our thas hel d t hata habe as pet i t i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2241 i s t he appr opr i at e w ayt o chal l enge BO P r egul at i ons (in c lu d in g p lac e m e n t in a c o m m u n ityc o rre c tio n c e n ter o r h a lf w a yh o u se ) b e c a u se w h a t is a t issu e is th e “ e x e c u tio n ” o f th e p riso n e r’s se n ten c e a n d n o t th e “ c o n d iti o n s” o f h is confi nement . See W oodal l , 432 F. 3d at241- 44. R egar dl es s , w e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ct C our ti n i t s Sept ember28 or dert hatM ur r ay ’ s pet i t i on i s m er i t l es s w hetheri ti s cons t rued as ar i s i ng under§ 2241 or§ 1631. 4 U . S . C . § 1 36 1. M and am us rel i ef i s t o b e i ssued on l yi n ex t raor dinaryci rcum st ances, w her e the pet i t i onerdemonst r at es t hathe has no al t ernat i ve means t o achi eve the r el i ef s ought , and thathe has a cl earand i ndi s put abl e r i ghtt o t he w r i t . See St ehney , 101 F. 3d at 9 3 4 & n .6 . W e agree w i t h the D i stri ctC ou rtt hat M urr ayhas fail ed to est abli sh t hat he has a c lea r a n d in d isp u tab le r ig h t to p re -re lea se p lac e m e n t in a n R R C w ith o u t p a rticip a tin g in t h e s u b s i s t e n c e p r o g r a m. Th e BOP i s a u t h o r i z e d t o c o l l e c ta s u b s i s t e n c e f e e f r o m a 2 fede ral pri soner for the co st s of his con fi nem ent i n co m m un i t ycorr ect i on s cent ers , i ncl udi ng R R C ’ s . T he s ubs i s t ence pr ogr am, w hi ch r equi r es i nm at es t o paya por t i on of t he cos tof the R R C , i s a condi t i on of pl ace m enti n t he R R C i m pos ed t o encour age fi nanci al r es pons i bi l i t yi n or dert hati nm at es m ayr ei nt egr at e i nt o s oci ety . T he s ubs i s t ence p ro g ra m a rise s f

ro m B O P p o licya n d e m a n a tes f ro m th e B O P ’s g e n e ra l sta tu to rya u th o rity to m an ag e the p ri so n s. S ee 1 8 U . S . C . § § 4 0 4 2 (a), 3 6 2 4 (c)(1). A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or der s di s m i s s i ng t he compl ai ntand deny i ng M ur r ay ’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on.