FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ar c h 15, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 10912 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -028 46 -C V -C A M -1 L E R O Y E L L I S , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s B U R E A U O F P R I S O N S , U .S .P . A T L A N T A , R e c o r d s D e p a rtm e n t, D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( M ar c h 15, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , B IR C H an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

L er o y E ll is, a fe d er al p riso n erp ro ce ed in g p ro se , ap p ea ls th e d istrict co u rt’s di s m i s s a l , unde r28 U . S . C . § 1915A , of hi s c i vi l c om pl a i nts e e ki ng puni t i ve a nd c om pe ns a t ory da m a ge s f ori l l e ga l c onf

i ne m e nta ga i ns tthe F e de r a l B ur e au of P r is o n s ( “B O P ” ) , U n ite d S ta te s P e n ite n tia ry in A tla n ta , R e c o r d s D e p a rtm e n t. W e A F F I R M. I . B AC KG RO UN D E llis f ile d ap r o s e c iv il a c tio n a g a in s t th e B O P , U n ite d S ta te s P e n ite n tia ry in A tl an ta, R ec o rd s D ep ar tm en t, an d stated th at h e w as in v o k in g th e d istrict co u rt’s j uri sdi ct i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 33 1. E l l i s a l l eged thatthe B O P hel d h i m for three y e a r s b e y o n d h is c o rr e c t r e le a s e d a te . H e c o n te n d s th a t, w h ile h e w a s in s ta te c u s to d y a w a itin g s e n te n c in g o n s ta te c h a r g e s in S e p te m b e r1 9 9 2 , h e w a s ta k e n in to f e d e r a l c u s to d yp u r s u a n t to af e d e r a l in d ic tm e n t. T h e d is tr ic t ju d g e s e n te n c e d E llis t o 137 m onths of

i m pr i s onm e nton N ove m be r18, 1992, a nd, on N ove m be r24, 1 9 9 2 , h e r e c e iv e d as e v e n - y e a rs e n te n c e f o rth e s ta te c h a r g e s . E llis a r g u e s th a t h is st at e s ent ence w as t o run concurrent l y w i th h i s f eder al se nt ence . H e a l so al l eges th a th e wa s c o m m i tt e d t o f e d e r a l c u s t o d y u n t i l F e b ru a ry 1 7 , 1 9 9 4 , wh e n th e B OP transfe rr ed hi m t o st at e c ust od y a ft erre al i zi ng he had b ee n err on eousl y des i gn at ed a s af e de r a l pr i s one r . E l l i s a r gue s tha t , w he n he c om pl e t e d hi s s t a t e s e nt e nc e on J ul y 2, 1996, the B O P e rr one ous l y de t e rm i ne d tha thi s f e de r a l s e nt e nc e be ga n on3

thatdat e and di d n otgranthi m cr edi tfor the pri or t i m e thathe had spenti n federa l c us t ody . C ons e que nt l y , he c ont e nds tha thi s f e de r a l s e nt e nc e w a s i nc r e a s e d by f i f t e e n m onths . R 1- 1 a t6. E l l i s a l l e ge s tha the pr e vi ous l y f i l e d tw o a c t i ons r a i s i ng hi s c l a i m s i n f

e de r a l c ourtbuttha the w a s de ni e d r e l i e f i n both. E l l i s s ought com pensat ory dam ages of $1 , 00 0, 00 0 and pu ni t i ve dam ages of $1 , 00 0, 00 0. In s upportof

hi s c l a i m , E l l i s a tt a c he d the doc ke ts he e tf r om hi s f e de r a l c onvi c t i on, w hi c h i ndi c a t e s tha tthe e xe c ut i on of hi s s e nt e nc e be ga n on J a nua ry 10, 1993, a nd th e tr a n s f

e ro r d e ro f

F e b ru a ry 1 7 , 1 9 9 4 . R 1 - 1 , a tta c h e d e x h ib its . T he di s tr i c tj udge , a c t i ng s uas pont e , di s m i s s e d E l l i s ’ s a c t i on a s f r i vol ous un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 91 5A . T he j ud ge no t ed thatE l l i s’ s a ct i on i ni t i al l y w as c ons true d a s ahabe a s pe t i t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 2241 a nd or de r e d tha tthe a c t i on b e c o n v e rte d in to ac iv il r ig h ts a c tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 1 a n d B iv e n s v . S ix U nknow n N a m e d A ge nt s of the F e de r a l B ur e au of

N a r c ot i c s , 403 U . S . 388, 91 S . C t . 19 99 (197 1), because E l l i s i nv ok ed the di stri ctcourt ’ s j uri sdi ct i on un der § 1 3 3 1 a n d s o u g h to n l y d a ma g e s . Th e d i s tr i c tj u d g e th e n g r a n t e d El l i s i n f o rma paup er i s s t atus and scr ee ned h i s a ct i on pu rs uantt o § 19 15 A . T he j ud ge t oo k n ot i ce tha tthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof P e nns y l va ni a , i n de ny i ng a§ 2241 pe t i t i on br oughtby E l l i s r ai si ng the sa m e c l ai m , concl ud ed thatany t i m e E l l i s had spenti n federa l c us t ody e rr one ous l y w a s c r e di t e d t o hi s s t a t e s e nt e nc e a nd tha tE l l i s w a s not4

ent i t l ed t o h ave hi s s t at e and fe dera l se nt ence s run concurrent l y. R 1-3 at4; se e E l l i s v. T rue , N o. 4: C V - 97- 1511 ( M . D . P a . D e c . 30, 1997) , a f f’ d 164 F . 3d 621 ( 3d C i r. 1 9 9 8 ). T h e d i stri ctj u d g e al so fo u n d th atE l l i s rai sed th e sam e cl ai m i n atl east tw o s uc c e s s i ve § 2241 pe t i t i ons tha tw e r e both de ni e d. R 1- 3 a t4; s e e E l l i s v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , N o. 5: 02- c v- 165 ( M . D . F l a . A ug. 12, 2002) ; E l l i s v. A s hc r of t , N o. 1 :0 4 - c v - 0 0 0 1 5 ( N .D . F la . S e p t. 1 6 , 2 0 0 5 ) . T h e ju d g e c o n c lu d e d th a t E llis ’s c la im w as “ ' i nd i sput abl y m er i t l es s' ” bec ause he fa i l ed t o sho w thathi s s ent ence w as i nv al i d o r c al l ed i nt o q uest i on and that , i n fac t , hi s c hal l enges t o h i s s ent ence had been “ soun dl y r ej ec t ed. ” R 1-3 at5. A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctj ud ge di sm i ss ed E llis ’s a c tio n a s f

r iv o lo u s . O n ap p e a l, E llis a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t ju d g e e rr e d b y c h ar a c te r iz in g h is c la im a s aB iv e n s a c tio n . H e c o n te n d s th a t th e is s u e is th e B O P ’s e rr o rin its d esi g n at i o n p ro cess, n o tth e u n co n st i tu t i o n al i ty o f h i s co n fi n em en t . E l l i s al so ar gu es thatthe di stri ctj ud ge di d n otprop er l y e xam i ne the re cord before concl ud i ng thathi s c l ai m w as w i tho utm er i tbecause he provi ded suffi ci entsupp ort f orhi s c l a i m . T he gove rnm e ntdi d notr e s pond. I I . DI S CUS S I ON U nde r§ 1915A , adi s tr i c tj udge m us tr e vi e w apr i s one r ’ s c i vi l c om pl a i nt a g a in s t ag o v e rn m e n ta l e n tityo ra n o f f ic e ro re m p lo y e e o f

ag o v e rn m e n ta l e n tityto5

i de nt i f y c ogni z abl e c l a i m s ort o di s m i s s the c om pl a i nt , ora ny port i on of the c om pl a i nt , i f

the c om pl a i nt“ i s f

r i vol ous , m a l i c i ous , orf a i l s t o s t a t e ac l a i m upon w hi ch re l i ef

m aybe grant ed. ” 28 U . S . C . § 1 91 5A (a ), (b)( 1). S i m i l ar l y, a di stri ct j udge m us tdi s m i s s a n appe a l t a ke n i n f orm apaupe r i s i f

, a ta ny t i m e , the j udge de t e rm i ne s tha tthe a c t i on i s “ f r i vol ous , ” “ m a l i c i ous , ” or“ f a i l s t o s t a t e ac l a i m on wh i c h r e l i e f

m a y b e g r a n t e d . ” 2 8 U. S . C . § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i ) - ( i i ) . B e c au s e we re vi ew a di stri ctj ud ge’ s dec i si on t o d i sm i ss a c om pl ai ntas fr i vo l ou s und er§ 1915( e ) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) f

ora n abus e of

di s c r e t i on, N api e rv. P r e s l i c ka , 314 F . 3d 528, 531 (11th C i r. 20 02 ), w e w i l l re vi ew a di stri ctj ud ge’ s di sm i ss al of a c om pl ai ntas f r i vol ous unde r§ 1915A f ora n abus e of

di s c r e t i on. S e e B i l a l v. D r i ve r , 251 F . 3d 13 46 , 13 49 (11th C i r. 20 01 ) ( st at i ng that“ [a ] det erm i nat i on of fr i vo l i ty i s bes tl ef t t o the di stri ctcourt ”) ; R i ce v. B aker , 18 1 F ed. A pp x. 90 2, 90 3 (11 th C i r. 20 06 ) ( per curi am ) ( re vi ew i ng the di stri ctj ud ge’ s di sm i ss al of a c om pl ai ntas fr i vo l ou s und er § 1915A f

ora n abus e of

di s c r e t i on) . A n a c t i on i s f r i vol ous i f

i ti s “ w i thout a r guabl e m e r i te i the ri n l a w orf a c t . ” B i l a l , 251 F . 3d a t1349. B i vens es t abl i shed the avai l abi l i ty of acause of a ct i on for m on et ary da m a ge s a ga i ns tf

e de r a l of f i c i a l s i n the i ri ndi vi dua l c apa c i t i e s ba s e d on avi ol a t i on of af e de r a l c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght . 403 U . S . a t395- 97, 91 S . C t . a t2004- 05. B i ve ns i nv ol ved al l eged vi ol at i on s of the F ou rth A m endm ent , bu tthe S up re m e C ou rthas6

e xt e nde d B i ve ns t o a c t i ons a l l e gi ng vi ol a t i ons of the D ue P r oc e s s C l aus e of the F i f th A m e ndm e nt . D a vi s v. P a s s m a n, 442 U . S . 228, 242- 44, 99 S . C t . 2264, 2275- 76 ( 1979) . B i ve ns a c t i ons m a y notbe a s s e rt e d a ga i ns tf e de r a l a ge nc i e s . F e d. D e p o s it I n s . C o rp . v . M e y e r , 5 1 0 U .S . 4 7 1 , 4 8 6 , 1 1 4 S .C t. 9 9 6 , 1 0 0 5 - 0 6 ( 1 9 9 4 ) . T he S up re m e C ou rthas hel d that i n or de rt o r e c ove rda m a ge s fo r al l e ge dl y unc ons t i tut i ona l c onvi c t i on o r i m p ri so n m e n t, o r fo r o th er h arm cau sed b y act i o n s w h o se unl a w f ul ne s s w oul d r e n d er a co nvi c t i on ors e nt e nc e i nva l i d, a§ 1983 pl a i nt i f f mus t pr ov e tha t the c on vi c t i on or s e nt e nc e ha s be e n r ever se d o n d i rectap p eal , e x p u n g ed b y ex ecu t i v e o rd er, d ecl ared i n v al i d b y a s ta te tr ib u n a l au th o r iz e d to m a k e s u c h d e te rm in a tio n , o rc a lle d in to q u e s tio n b y af

e d e r a l c o u rt's is s u a n c e o f aw r it o f h ab e a s c o rp u s . . . . H e c kv . H u m p h r e y , 5 1 2 U .S . 4 7 7 , 4 8 6 - 8 7 , 1 1 4 S .C t. 2 3 6 4 , 2 3 7 2 ( 1 9 9 4 ) . T h u s , if e n te r in g ju d g m e n t in f

a v o ro f th e p r is o n e r“w o u ld n e c e s s a r ilyim p lyth e in v a lid ity of [ the pr i s one r ’ s ] c onvi c t i on ors e nt e nc e [ , ] ” adi s tr i c tj udge m us tdi s m i s s the com pl ai ntun l es s the pri soner dem on stra t es thatthe conv i ct i on or se nt ence has al re ady bee n i nv al i dat ed. Id. at48 7, 11 4 S . C t . at23 72 . W e have hel d thatH ec k appl i e s w i th e qua l f

or c e i n aB i ve ns a c t i on f i l e d by af

e de r a l pr i s one r . A be l l av. R u b in o , 6 3 F .3 d 1 0 6 3 , 1 0 6 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . A s an i ni t i al m att er , the di stri ctcourtprop er l y c on si dere d E l l i s’ s c l ai m un der B i ve ns . I n hi s c om pl a i nt , E l l i s s oughtm one t a ry da m a ge s f r om i ndi vi dua l s i n the R e c or ds D e pa rtm e ntof

the B ur e au of

P r i s ons ’ s f

e de r a l pe ni t e nt i a ry i n A t l a nt af orTo the extent that Ellis attempts to bring a claim for monetary

d am age s aga i n st the BOP 1 for the actions of its employees, such a claim should be brought under the Fe deral Tort Claims Act (“F TCA ” ), 28 U. S.C. §§ 13 46 , 267 1 et se q. F or a dis trict cou rt to have jurisdic tio n over an F TCA action, a plaintiff must first show that he presented his claim to the ag ency and that the ag ency denie d it in writing . 2 8 U .S. C. § 26 75 (a); B urc hf ie ld v. Unite d State s, 16 8 F .3 d 1 25 2, 12 54 -5 5 ( 11 th Cir . 1 99 9) . B e c a

us e El lis pre sente d no ev idenc e that hemet this re quirement, thedis tric t c ourt did n o th av ej uri s di c ti o no v er any c l ai mf

o r m o n e t ar y dam ag e s ag ain s tth eB O P a s anag en c y. 7 c om m i tt i ng a n e rr ortha tr e s ul t e d i n i l l e ga l c onf i ne m e nti n vi ol a t i on of

hi s due p r o c e s s r ig h ts . T h e d is tr ic t ju d g e c o rr e c tlyf o u n d th a t B iv e n s is th e ap p r o p r ia te c aus e of a c t i on f ors uc h ac l a i m . S e e D a vi s , 442 U . S . a t242- 44, 99 S . C t . a t2275- 7 6 . T o th e e x t e n tth a tE l l i s a r g u e s h e s o u g h tm o n e t a ry d a m a g e s a g a i n s tth e B OP i t se l f, a f eder al agency , such a c l ai m i s notcogn i zabl e und erB i vens, se e M ey er , 510 U . S . a t486, 114 S . C t . a t1005- 06, a nd E l l i s di d notm e e tthe r e qui r e m e nt s of r a i s i ng ac l a i m f

orm one t a ry da m a ge s a ga i ns tthe f e de r a l gove rnm e ntunde rthe F eder al T ortC l ai m s A ct , 28 U . S . C . §§ 13 46 , 26 75 (a ). 1 T h e d istrict j u d g e d idn o t ab u se h is d iscr etio n b y c o n clu d in g th at E ll is’s B iv e n s c la im w a s w ith o u t ar g u ab le m e r it. E llis c la im s th a t h e h a s r e m a in e d in f e de r a l c us t ody be y ond hi s r e l e a s e da t e be c aus e hi s f e de r a l s e nt e nc e s houl d ha ve ru n c o n c u rr e n t l y wi th as t a t e s e n t e n c e th a th e a l s o r e c e i v e d a n d b e c au s e th e B OP f a i l e d t o c r e di thi s f

e de r a l s e nt e nc e w i th t i m e he s pe nti n af e de r a l pr i s on dur i ng w hi c h he s houl d ha ve be e n i n as t a t e pr i s on. A rul i ng i n f a vorof E l l i s , c onc l udi ng th a t in d iv id u a ls in th e B O P w e r e liab le f o rille g a llyc o n f

in in g h im , w o u ld n e c e s s a r ilyim p lyth a t h is f e d e r a l s e n te n c e w a s in v a lid o n th e g r o u n d s th a t it s h o u ld8

have run con curr ent l y w i th h i s s t at e s ent ence or becaus e he di d n otre ce i ve prop er c r e d it f o rtim e p r e v io u s lys e rv e d . T h e r e f o r e , to s u c c e e d o n h is B iv e n s c la im , E llis m u s t f ir s t p r o v e th a t h is s e n te n c e h a s b e e n in v a lid a te d o ra t le a s t “c a lle d in to q u e s tio n .” H e c k , 5 1 2 U .S . a t 4 8 7 , 1 1 4 S .C t. a t 2 3 7 2 . E l l i s ha s notm a de s uc h as how i ng; i ns t e a d, he a dm i t s tha thi s pr e vi ous c ha l l e nge s t o hi s s e nt e nc e ha ve f a i l e d. E l l i s r a i s e d the s a m e a r gum e nt s r e ga r di ng h i s sen t en ce t o v ari o u s d i stri ctco u rt s th ro u g h 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 4 1 h ab eas p et i t i o n s, a nd e a c h di s tr i c tc ourtr e j e c t e d hi s a r gum e nt s . E l l i s v. T rue , N o. 4: C V - 97- 1511 ( M . D . P a . D e c . 30, 1997) ; E l l i s v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , N o. 5: 02- c v- 165 ( M . D . F l a . A ug. 12, 2002) ; E l l i s v. A s hc r of t , N o. 1: 04- c v- 00015 ( N . D . F l a . S e pt . 16, 2005) . O ne di s tr i c tj udge s pe c i f

i c a l l y f ound tha tE l l i s w a s note nt i t l e d t o ha ve hi s s e nt e nc e s run c o n c u rr e n tlyo rto r e c e iv e c r e d it o n h is f e d e r a l s e n te n c e f

o rth e tim e h e s e rv e d in f e d e r a l p r i s o n b e c au s e th e t i m e wa s c r e d i t e d t o h i s s t a t e s e n t e n c e . E l l i s , No . 4 : C V97 -151 1, at7. In vi ew of these pri or rul i ng s and the abse nce of any e vi dence that hi s s e nt e nc e ha s be e n i nva l i da t e d orc a l l e d i nt o que s t i on, E l l i s c a nnotm e e tthe r e qui r e m e nt s of

H e c k. T he r e f

or e , the di s tr i c tj udge di d notabus e hi s di s c r e t i on by co n cl u d i n g th atE l l i s’ s cl ai m w as fri v o l o u s.9 I I I . CONCL US I ON E llis a r g u e s o n ap p e a l th a t th e d is tr ic t ju d g e e rr o n e o u s lytr e a te d h is c om pl a i nta s aB i ve ns a c t i on a nd, c ons e que nt l y , c onc l ude d tha thi s c l a i m ha d no m e r it. A s w e h a v e e x p la in e d , th e ju d g e c o rr e c tlya n a ly z e d E llis 's a lle g a tio n s . A cco rd i n g l y, th e d i stri ctj u d g e' s d i sm i ssal o f E l l i s' s co m p l ai n ti s AF F I RME D.