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 8-20-2008 

# Arms trong v

. 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 . 08-1611

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 " Arm s tr on g v

. Gr ondo l sk

y " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 637. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/637**A M E N D E D B L D - 219 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. 08- 1611

___________ M AR T I N A. AR M S T RO NG, A ppel l ant

v. J E F F G R O N D O L S K Y , W A R D E N ; S C O T T D O D R IL L , R E G IO N A L D IR E C T O R B O P P H IL A D E L P H IA O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . N . J . C i vi l N o. 08- cv- 00569) Di s tr i c tJ u d g e : Ho n o r a b l e Re n e e M . Bu mb

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e D i s m i s s al D ue t o a J ur i s di ct i onal D efe ct o r P u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ) or f o r S u m m aryA cti o n P u rsua n t t o 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 5, 2008 B efor e: M C K E E , R E N D E L L A N D SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t20, 2008

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM M art i n A r m s tr ong, a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s fr om an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s eydeny i ng hi s m ot i on t o s t ay2

the exe cut i on of hi s cr i m i nal s ent ence , ori n the al t ernat i ve, t o gr antbai l , and hi s m ot i on fori m m edi at e cha nge i n cus t odyt o hom e conf i nement . W e w i l l aff

i r m the or derof the D istric t C o u rt. I n 1999, the Secur i t i es and Exchange Com m i s s i on and the C om m odi tyFutur es T r adi ng C om m i s s i on br oughta ci vi l s ecur i t i es fr aud ac t i on agai ns tA r m s tr ong. T he U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e S o u th e rn D istric t o f N e w Y o rk h e ld A rm stro n g in civil con tem p t fo r fa il ing to turn o v er rec o rds a n d asse ts t o a c o u rt -ap p o inted rec eive r. In 2 0 0 4 , A rm stro n g f

iled a h a b e a s p e tit io n c h a llen g in g h is c o n f in e m e n t f

o r c iv il co n tem p t. T h e U n it ed S tat es C o u rto f A p p ea ls fo r th e S ec o n d C ir cu itaf firm ed the d istri ct co u rt ’s deni al of habe as r el i ef. A r m s tr ong v. G ucci one, 470 F. 3d 89 ( 2d C i r . 2006) , cert . deni ed, 1 2 8 S . C t. 4 8 6 (2 0 0 7 ). A rm stro n g w a s a lso c rim in a llyp ro se c u ted f o r se c u rities f

ra u d . H e p lea d e d g u ilty to c o n sp ira c yto d e f

ra u d th e U n ited S tate s. In 2 0 0 7 , A rm stro n g re c e iv e d a 6 0 -m o n th p ri so n sen tenc e, w h ich w o u ld b eg in w h en the c ivil co n tem p t m att er w as re so lved . B ef o re he w as s ent ence d, A r m s tr ong uns ucce s s ful l ys oughta dec l ar at oryj udgm entand i nj unct i ve r el i ef t o cr edi tthe t i m e he s penti n j ai l forci vi l cont empt agai ns thi s cr i m i nal s ent ence . A rm stro n g ’s c iv il co n tem p t o rd e r w a s th e n v a c a ted , an d h e b e g a n se rv in g h is c rim in a l se n ten c e in F o rt D ix , N e w Je rse y . In Ja n u a ry2 0 0 8 , h e f iled a p e tit io n f

o r a w rit of habe as corpus i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s eyT he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o ques t i oned w hetherthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s eyw as the pr oper 1 v e n u e f o r c iv il cla im s a risin g o u t o f A rm stro n g ’s c o n f

in e m e n t in N e w Y o rk f o r c iv il c o n tem p t. 3 pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2241. A r m s tr ong cl ai m s , among ot herthi ngs , thathe i s ent i t l ed to c re d it ag a in st h is c rim in a l se n ten c e f o r th e tim e h e sp e n t in p riso n f o r c iv il co n tem p t, thathe w as w r ongful l yconfi ned forci vi l cont empt , and thathe w as as s aul t ed i n pr i s on du ri ng his con fi nem ent for ci vil con t em pt. A rm strong als o fil ed v ari ou s m oti on s, i ncl udi ng a mot i on fora cha nge i n cus t odyt o hom e conf i nement , and a mot i on t o s t aythe exec ut i on of hi s cr i m i nal s ent ence , or , i n the al t ernat i ve, t o gr antbai l , pendi ng the c o n c lu s io n o f

th e h a b e a s p ro c e e d in g s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatthe ci vi l cont empt or derw as vaca t ed on A pr i l 27, 2 0 0 7 , a n d th a t A rm s tr o n g b e g a n s e rv in g h is 6 0 -m o n th c ri m in a l s e n te n c e o n th a t d a te . B ec au se A rm str o n g w as n o lon g er in c u stod yfo r civil co n tem p t, the D istri ct C o u rt di s m i s s ed A r m s tr ong’ s habea s cl ai m s r el at ed t o the ci vi l cont empt or der . T he D i s tr i ct C our tal s o di s m i s s ed A r m s tr ong’ s cl ai m s fordamages and i nj unct i ve r el i ef unde rB i vens v . S ix U n k n o w n N am ed A g en ts of F ed . B u r. o f N arc o ti cs, 40 3 U . S . 3 8 8 , 3 8 9 (19 7 1 ), e x p lain in g th a t, un d e r th e P riso n L iti g a tio n R e f o rm A c t, A rm stro n g w a s re q u ire d to pur s ue hi s cl ai m s i n a s epar at e ci vi l act i on. 1 T he D i s tr i ctC our tor der ed A r m s tr ong’ s pr es entcus t odi an, W ar den J eff G ro n d o lsk y , to r e sp o n d to A rm stro n g ’s a lleg a tio n th a t h e is e n tit led to re c e iv e c re d it agai ns thi s cr i m i nal s ent ence forthe t i m e s penti n pr i s on forci vi l cont empt . T he D i s tr i ct4

C ou rtden i ed A rm strong’s r equ estfor a w ri tof m and am us com pell i ng such creditbecau se A r m s tr ong had an a vai l abl e r emedypur s uantt o § 2241. Fi nal l y , the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed A r m s tr ong’ s m ot i ons , i ncl udi ng hi s m ot i on fora cha nge i n cus t odyt o hom e conf i nement and hi s m ot i on t o s t aythe exe cut i on of the cr i m i nal s ent ence , or , al t ernat i vel y , t o gr ant b a il p e n d in g th e c o n c lu s io n o f h is h a b e a s p ro c e e d in g s . A r m s tr ong fi l ed a not i ce of appea l l i m i t ed t o the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of bai l or a n o r d e rs t a y i n g th e e x e c u t i o n o f h i s s e n t e n c e , o ra c h a n g e i n c u s t o d yt o h o me confi nement . W e have j ur i s di ct i on underthe col l at er al or derdoctr i ne t o r evi ew an or der deny i ng a mot i on forr el eas e on bai l pendi ng the r es ol ut i on of a ha beas pet i t i on. U ni t ed S tate s v . S m ith , 8 3 5 F .2 d 1 0 4 8 , 1 0 4 9 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 7 ). S im ilarly , w e h a v e ju risd ictio n to re v iew th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e n ial o f a sta yo f e x e c u tio n o f

se n ten c e a n d a c h a n g e in cust od yt o h om e con fi nem ent unde r the co l l at eral order doctr i ne, as these rul i ng s ar e al so sev era b le fro m the m erit s, co n clus ivelyd eterm ine th e d ispu ted q u esti o n , an d are eff ect i vel yunr evi ew abl e on appe al fr om a fi nal j udgm ent . See i d. A s re c o g n ize d b yth e D istric t C o u rt, th e sta n d a rd s g o v e rn in g sta y s o f c iv il ju d g m e n ts g u id e c o u rts in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r to re lea se a f e d e ra l p riso n e r se e k in g b a il pendi ng di s pos i t i on of a ha beas pet i t i on. I d. at1050. T hes e s t andar ds i ncl ude the lik e lih o o d o f

su c c e ss o n th e m e rits, irre p a ra b le in ju ry , inju ryto o th e r p a rties in ter e ste d in the pr ocee di ng, and the publ i c i nt er es t . I d. A r m s tr ong di d notm ake a “s tr ong s how i ng th a t h e is lik e lyto su c c e e d o n th e m e rits.” I d . A rm stro n g a rg u e d th a t h e w a s w ro n g f u llyA s t at e pr i s oners eeki ng habea s r el i ef musts how extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s 2 w arr ant i ng bai l . L andano v. R aff erty , 970 F. 2d 1230, 1240 ( 3d C i r . 1992) . I n L andano, w e no t ed thatthe st and ard app l i ed in Sm i th w as ar gu ablym ore l i beral t ow ard r el ease fr om cus t odythan w arr ant ed. I d. at1239 n. 19. B eca us e A r m s tr ong does nots at i s fythe m or e l i ber al s t andar d i n Sm i th, w e nee d notdeci de w hetherhe w as r equi r ed t o s how extr aordi naryci rcum st ances. 5 hel d i n ci vi l cont empt , and thus the B ur eau of Pr i s ons w as r equi r ed t o cr edi thi s cr i m i nal se n ten c e w ith th e tim e h e se rv e d f o r c iv il co n tem p t. A rm stro n g ’s c h a llen g e to h is confi nementforci vi l cont empt , how ever , w as uns ucce s s ful . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d not e rr in d e n y in g A rm stro n g ’s m o tio n to sta yth e e x e c u tio n o f h is c rim in a l se n ten c e o r to g ra n t b a il. 2 W e a lso f

in d n o e rro r in th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e n ial o f A rm stro n g ’s m o tio n to change hi s cus t odyt o hom e conf i nement . A r m s tr ong al l eged thathom e conf i nementw as nece s s arys o thathe coul d acc es s document s r el evantt o hi s habea s pet i t i on, and s o thathe coul d obt ai n neede d dent al car e. T he D i s tr i ctC our texpl ai ned thatthe onl yr emai ni ng iss u e in th e h a b e a s p ro c e e d in g w a s w h e th e r A rm stro n g is e n tit led to c re d it ag a in st h is crim inal sen tenc e f

o r th e ti m e h e sp en t i n p ri so n fo r civil co n tem p t. T h e D istri ct C o u rt not ed thatthi s cl ai m r es t s i n l ar ge partupon i s s ues of s t atut orycons truct i on, and thatthe W ar den w oul d be or der ed t o pr oduce the r el evantpor t i ons of the r ecor d. W e al s o agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthatA r m s tr ong m aypur s ue a c i vi l r i ght s act i on t o the ext enthe c la im s h e is b e in g d e p ri v e d o f d e n ta l c a re in v io la tio n o f h is E ig h th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts . A rm stro n g f

u rth e r sta ted th a t h o m e c o n f in e m e n t w o u ld e n a b le h im to c a re f o r h is e ld e rlyA r m s tr ong al s o appea l s the deni al of hi s m ot i on forw or k r el eas e, w hi ch w as 3 cont ai ned i n hi s m ot i on fora s t ayof exe cut i on of hi s cr i m i nal s ent ence . A l though the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notexpr es s l yaddr es s thi s m ot i on i n i t s opi ni on, A r m s tr ong has not s how n thathe has a col or abl e cl ai m of ent i t l ementt o w or k r el eas e. A ll o f A rm s tr o n g ’s o u ts ta n d in g m o tio n s a re d e n ie d . 4 6 m other . H om e con fi nem ent i s not w arr anted on this basi s. 3 A c c o rd in g ly , b e c a u se th is a p p e a l d o e s n o t ra ise a su b sta n tial q u e stio n , w e w ill a f f irm th e o rd e r o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. 4