2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

2-18-2010

Charles Murray v. J. Grondolsky

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-3986

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Charles Murray v. J. Grondolsky" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 1865.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/1865
ALD-109 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3986

___________

CHARLES F. MURRAY,

Appellant

v.

J. GRONDOLSKY, Warden; J. KNOX, Unit Manager;

J. ORDONEZ, Case Manager; L. BATISTE, Correctional Counselor

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey 

(D.C. Civil No. 1:09-cv-03183)

District Judge: Honorable Joseph E. Irenas

____________________________________

Submitted for Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

January 28, 2010

Before: SLOVITER, AMBRO and SMITH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 18, 2010)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Charles Murray, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s orders

dismissing his case and denying his motion for reconsideration, respectively. Because the

appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm the District
 When presented with the form, Murray attempted to challenge the provision by 1

amending the language to state that he would only make payments “when authorized

under statutory law or code of federal regulations.” The BOP thereafter charged and

sanctioned Murray with forgery and counterfeit of an official document. As a result of

this incident, Murray filed a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In

this complaint, which is currently pending in the District of New Jersey, Murray has

asked the District Court to order the BOP to reverse its findings of forgery and to restore

all privileges that were lost as sanctions. See D.N.J. 1:09-cv-4347.

2

Court’s orders. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.

I.

In June 2009, Murray filed a pro se petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 for a writ of

mandamus in the District of New Jersey, seeking an order to compel federal prison

officials to authorize his pre-release transfer to a Residential Re-Entry Center (“RRC”). 

In his complaint, Murray alleged that while he had been approved for a pre-release

transfer to an RRC, he was informed that the transfer was dependent upon his executing a

Community Based Agreement Form. This form includes a provision that Murray would

agree to make payments to contribute to the cost of the residence. Murray challenged that

term of the agreement, asserting that all expenses attendant to his incarceration must be

paid out of the United States Treasury, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4007, and that he is

exempt from paying any cost of incarceration fee, pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 505.3. Murray

also argued that his failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing the

complaint should be excused, as exhaustion would be “an exercise in futility” and the

time lost during the administrative appeal process would be highly prejudicial.1
3

The District Court interpreted Murray’s petition for a writ of mandamus as a

petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On July 10, 2009, the

District Court dismissed Murray’s petition sua sponte for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies. The District Court also found that, to the extent failure to exhaust could be

excused, Murray’s petition is without merit because the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) acted

within its statutory authority in conditioning pre-release transfer upon execution of a

Community Based Program Agreement. On September 28, 2009, the District Court

denied Murray’s motion for reconsideration. Murray now appeals to this Court from the

District Court’s July 10 and September 28 orders.

II.

 We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and exercise

plenary review over the District Court’s dismissal. See Stehney v. Perry, 101 F.3d 925,

929 (3d Cir. 1996); Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235, 239 n.3 (3d Cir.

2005). We generally review a district court’s decision on a motion for reconsideration for

abuse of discretion. Max’s Seafood Café ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d

669, 673 (3d Cir. 1999). Summary action is warranted when no substantial question is

presented on appeal. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6.

Murray filed his petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361. A

district court has jurisdiction over mandamus actions “to compel an officer or employee

of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28
 We note that the District Court treated Murray’s petition as a petition for writ of 2

habeas corpus instead of a petition for mandamus. This Court has held that a habeas

petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is the appropriate way to challenge BOP regulations

(including placement in a community correction center or halfway house) because what is

at issue is the “execution” of the prisoner’s sentence and not the “conditions” of his

confinement. See Woodall, 432 F.3d at 241-44. Regardless, we agree with the District

Court in its September 28 order that Murray’s petition is meritless whether it is construed

as arising under § 2241 or § 1631. 4

U.S.C. § 1361. Mandamus relief is to be issued only in extraordinary circumstances,

where the petitioner demonstrates that he has no alternative means to achieve the relief

sought, and that he has a clear and indisputable right to the writ. See Stehney, 101 F.3d at

934 & n.6. 

We agree with the District Court that Murray has failed to establish that he has a

clear and indisputable right to pre-release placement in an RRC without participating in

the subsistence program. The BOP is authorized to collect a subsistence fee from a 2

federal prisoner for the costs of his confinement in community corrections centers,

including RRC’s. The subsistence program, which requires inmates to pay a portion of

the cost of the RRC, is a condition of placement in the RRC imposed to encourage

financial responsibility in order that inmates may reintegrate into society. The subsistence

program arises from BOP policy and emanates from the BOP’s general statutory authority

to manage the prisons. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 4042(a), 3624(c)(1).

Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s orders dismissing the

complaint and denying Murray’s motion for reconsideration.