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 5-11-2010 

# Al an S cott v

. F air t on F C I 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 . 09-4171

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . 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 a nd 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 l l a nova 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 a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Al a n S c ott v

. F air t on F C I " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1361. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1361NOT 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- 4171

___________ ALA N N . SCOTT, A ppel l ant

v. FA I R T O N FC I , W ar den

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 09- cv- 00929 ( H onor abl e R enée M ar i e B um b)

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

M ay6, 2010 B efore: S C IR IC A , JO R D A N and G R E E N B E R G , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: M ay11, 2010)

_________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_________ P E R C U R I A M. I n M ar ch 2009, fede r al pr i s onerA l an Scot tfi l ed a pr o s e habe as pet i t i on i n t he D i s t r i ctC our tpur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2241. Scot tal l eged thathe had be en deni ed a d m iss io n in to F C I-F a irto n ’s R e sid e n tial D ru g A b u se P ro g ra m (“ R D A P ” ) d e sp ite2

evi dence t hathe had pr evi ous l yabus ed mar i j uana a nd her oi n. Scot tal s o cl ai m ed thathe w as el i gi bl e fora s ent ence r educt i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3621, w hi ch pr ovi des t hat t he B ur eau of

Pr i s ons ( “B O P”) m ayr educe , byas m uch as one y ear , t he pr i s on t erm of a nonvi ol entoffe nderw ho s ucce s s ful l ycompl et es a r es i dent i al s ubs t ance abus e tr eatm ent p rog ram . 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 6 2 1 (e)(2)(B ). Shor t l yaft erScot tfi l ed hi s pet i t i on, a bac k- and- for t h ens ued betw een the D i s t r i ct C our tand hi m s el f. O n t hr ee s epar at e occ as i ons , t he courtent er ed a s ua s pont e or der di s m i s s i ng hi s pet i t i on and he s ubs equent l ys ubm i t t ed new fi l i ngs amendi ng hi s pet i t i on an d /or ch all en g ing the c o u rt ’s ord er. T h ese d ev elop m en ts oc cu rred w ith o u t th e B O P ’s par t i ci pat i on i n t he ca s e, fori tappea r s t hati thad y ett o be s erved. T h is case u lt im atelycu lm inated in a s u a sp o n te ord er e n tered b ythe D istri ct C o u rt on S eptem ber 14, 2009 . T he co urt , con si deri ng S cott ’s t hen m ostrecentround of f i l i ng s, concl uded thatt hes e new s ubm i s s i ons , w hen compar ed t o hi s ear l i erfi l i ngs , “as s er t ed a fa ctua ll yd iffe ren t scen ario.” (D ist . C t. O rde r of S ep t. 1 4 , 2 0 0 9 , at 3.) A s su ch , the c o u rt cl os ed the ca s e, and di r ect ed the cl erk t o open a ne w habea s pr ocee di ng and docke t Scot t ’ s m os tr ece ntr ound of fi l i ngs i n t hatnew pr ocee di ng. T he courtfur t herdi r ect ed the cl erk t o serve al l of S cott ’s fi l i ng s on the B O P , and ordered t hat the B O P answ er tho se fi l i ngs docket ed i n t he new cas e. T hatnew cas e curr ent l yr emai ns pendi ng befor e theT he D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed thos e tw o ear l i eror der s on M ay26, 2009, and J ul y17, 1 2 0 0 9 , res p e c tiv e ly . S c o tt d o e s n o t ch a llen g e th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r e n ter e d o n A p ril 24, 2009, w hi ch di s m i s s ed hi s habea s pet i t i on w i t houtpr ej udi ce be caus e much of t he pet i t i on w as i l l egi bl e. 3 D i s t r i ctC our t . ( See D i s t . C t . C i v. N o. 1: 09- cv- 04710. ) Scot tnow s eeks r evi ew of the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s S eptem ber 14, 2009 order, as w el l as tw o o f t he earl i er or ders. 1 A di s t r i ctcour tor dert hatdoes notr es ol ve al l of a pe t i t i oner ’ s cl ai m s i n a gi ven act i on i s general l yno ti m m ediat el yapp eal able unl ess the co urtcert i fi es the o rderas a fi nal j udgm entpur s uantt o Fed. R . C i v. P. 54( b) . See H i l l v. C i t yof Scr ant on, 411 F. 3d 118, 124 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . I n t hi s cas e, nei t hert he court ’ s Sept ember14, 2009 or der , nor an yo f it s ea rl ier ord ers, r eso lved all o f h is cl aim s, fo r he sti ll h as c lai m s p en d ing b ef o re t he court . T hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tcl os ed Scot t ’ s or i gi nal habea s pr ocee di ng and opene d a n e w h a b e a s p ro c e e d in g to a d d re s s th o s e p e n d in g c la im s d o e s n o t c h a n g e th is re s u lt. A l t ho ug h the cou rtcon cl ud ed in i t s Sep t em ber 14, 2009 order that Scott ’s t hen m ost r ece nts etof fi l i ngs , w hen compar ed t o hi s ear l i erfi l i ngs , “as s er t ed a f actual l ydi ffe r ent scenari o, ” w e con cl ud e t hat hi s l egal c laim s d id n o t ch a n g e . In d e e d , S c o tt’s e f f o rts to obt ai n habea s r el i ef ha d cent er ed ar ound, and cont i nued t o cent erar ound, hi s cl ai m s t hat he s houl d have be en admi t t ed t o R D A P, and thathe i s el i gi bl e fora § 3621 s ent ence re d u c tio n u p o n h is c o m p letin g th a t p ro g ra m . A c c o rd in g ly , b e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt d id notcert i fyanyof the cha l l enged or der s pur s uantt o R ul e 54( b) , t heyar e notappea l abl e atA l t ho ug h the col l at eral order doctr i ne all ow s appell at e revi ew of a “ sm al l cl ass” 2 of i nt er l ocut or yor der s , s ee Pr axi s Pr ops . , I nc. v. C ol oni al Sav. B ank, S. L . A . , 947 F. 2d 49, 54 ( 3d C i r . 1991) , t hatdoctr i ne does notappl yher e. 4 t hi s t i m e. T hos e or der s m aybe r evi ew ed on appe al w hen the D i s t r i ctC our thas i s s ued a

2 fi nal j udgm enti n Scot t ’ s pendi ng pr ocee di ng. In lig h t o f

th e a b o v e , w e w ill d is m is s th is a p p e a l f o r l a c k o f

a p p e lla te ju ri s d ic tio n . S c o tt’s m o tio n to e x p e d ite th e a p p e a l is d e n ied a s m o o t.