2009 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 Third C irc uit 3-26-2009 

# N Eme rson W v

. Alexande r S p ence r P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-4030

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://digit alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by 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 Third C irc uit at V ill 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 2009 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " N E me r s on W v

. Alexande r S pe nc e r " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1671. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2009/1671BL D- 1 2 3 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- 4030

___________ NOR T H E M E RS ON WE S T ; D. R. HUB BA RD ; S A L IH M U H A M M A D A L -S H A B A Z Z ; H A S S A N U M A R S H A R IF v . AL E XANDE R S P E NC E R; BR YAN AL L AB AND; L . M CK I NNE Y; RO BE RT M . SH ELL ; D O N A LD C. FO X ; TH O M A S E. A D A M S; WALT E R R E DM AN; M AR K R E DM AN; GE OR GE M . P I P P I N; CH AR LES R. TUC KER ; SAM UEL W HEELER; THO M AS D ON OH UE; J AM E S A. WI L L I AM S ; F RE DE RI CK N. VAN S ANT ; J AM E S VAUGH N; RO BERT D . BRO OK S; NO RM AN YA NK OW I TT; DA NI EL PI ERCE, * ROLL I N LE E L AUB,

* A p p ell an t ( p u rsua n t t o F . R . A . P . 1 2 (a))

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

fo r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 78- cv- 00014) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sue L. R obi ns on

____________________________________ S u b mi tt e d f

o rP o s s i b l e Di s mi s s a l P u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) 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 M ar ch 5, 2009 B efor e: M cK E E , FI SH E R and C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed: M ar ch 26, 2009)

__________ OP I NI ON

__________2

P E R C UR I AM R o ll in L au b , an inm ate a t th e Ja m es T . V au g h n C o rrecti o n al C en ter (“JV C C ”), fo rm erlythe D elaw are C o rrecti o n al C en ter (“D C C ”), ap p ea ls from the D istri ct C o u rt ’s A u g u st 2 8 , 2 0 0 8 o rd e r d e n y in g h is m o tio n se e k in g re lief u n d e r F e d e ra l R u le o f

C iv il Pr ocedur e 60( b) ( 4) . L aub al l eged thatthe D i s tr i ctC ourtfai l ed t o pr oper l ynot i fyhi m of it s M arc h 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 o rde r t erm inating a 1 9 7 8 co n sen t dec ree , an d that the D istri ct C o u rt im p ro p e rlyter m in a ted th e d e c re e . B e c a u se w e d e ter m in e th a t th e a p p e a l is lac k in g in arg u ab le l eg al m erit , w e w il l dism iss i t un d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ). T h e g e n e sis o f

th e in sta n t ac tio n is a law su it file d in 1 9 7 8 b yN o rth E m e rso n W e st, an i nm at e atthe D C C . T hats ui t , cert i fi ed a c l as s act i on, conce rned pr i s on condi t i ons and di s ci pl i narypr ocedur es atthe ce nt er . A t t orneyD ougl as A . Shachtm an r epr es ent ed the in m a tes . In 1 9 8 2 , the p a rties a g re e d to a c o n se n t o rd e r th a t re q u ire d th e D C C to a d o p t a n e w d i s c i p l i n a ryc o d e e n t i t l e d th e “ Co rr e c t i o n Co d e o f P e n a l Di s c i p l i n e . ” I n 1 9 9 0 , two cl as s m emberi nm at es , Sal i h M uhamm ad A l - Shabazz and H as s an U m arShar i f, fi l ed a m ot i on t o vaca t e the cons entor der . T he def endant s r es ponded w i th a mot i on t o m odi fy th e c o n se n t o rd e r b e c a u se o f a c h a n g e in c irc u m sta n c e s. S h a c h tm a n f iled a m o tio n to w i thd raw as coun sel , w hich the D i stri ctC ou rtgrant ed. T he co urtden i ed b oth part i es’ m o tio n s f

o r re lief f ro m ju d g m e n t.I n 1996, the Pr i s on L i t i gat i on R eform A ct( “PL R A ”) beca m e ef fec t i ve. See 18 1 U . S. C . § 3626. Sect i ons 3626( a) and ( b) es t abl i s h s t andar ds thatm us tbe fol l ow ed w hen ent er i ng and t erm i nat i ng pr os pect i ve r el i ef i n ci vi l act i ons chal l engi ng condi t i ons at pri son fa ci l i t i es. 3 In 2 0 0 6 , the d e f

e n d a n ts f iled a m o tio n f

o r re lief f ro m th e c o n se n t o rd e r p u rsu a n t to 18 U . S . C . § 3 62 6(b). T he d efen dan t s served the m oti on on S hach tm an an d clas s 1 m ember s A l - Shabazz and Shar i f atthe addr es s es l i s t ed on the courtdocket . Shachtm an di d notr epl yand the mai l t o Shabazz and Shar i f w as r eturned as undel i ver abl e. T he D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted th e m o ti o n an d term inated the c o n sen t ord er. L aub , the cu rr ent appell ant, w as an i nm at e atthe D C C atthe ti m e of the cl ass a c tio n , a n d is s till i n c a rc e ra te d th e re . H e w a s n o t n a m e d in th e o ri g in a l 1 9 7 8 c o m p la in t. L au b fil ed the in stan t m o ti o n o n M arc h 1 9 , 2 0 0 8 , p u rsua n t t o F ed . R . C iv. P. 60 (b)(4 ), al l egi ng that( 1) the D i s tr i ctC ourthad vi ol at ed hi s due pr oces s r i ght s bynotnot i fy i ng hi m of the cons entor der ’ s t erm i nat i on and ( 2) the D i s tr i ctC our ti m pr oper l yt erm i nat ed the cons entor der . H e al s o fi l ed a mot i on fora pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on hal t i ng the t erm i nat i on of the cons entor derand a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent . O n A ugus t28, 2008, the D i s tr i ctC ourtdeni ed Laub’ s R ul e 60( b) ( 4) m ot i on and deni ed the other s as m oot . T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. W e h a v e ju risd ictio n o v e r th is a p p e a l p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , an d re v iew it forpos s i bl e di s m i s s al under28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) . A n appea l m us tbe di s m i s s ed under28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) i f i thas no ar guabl e bas i s i n l aw orfac t . N ei t zke v.4

W ill iam s, 4 9 0 U .S . 3 1 9 , 3 2 5 (1 9 8 9 ). B e c a u se w e d e ter m in e th a t th e a p p e a l is lac k in g in arg u ab le l eg al m erit , w e w il l dism iss i t un d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ). T he D i s tr i ctC ourtcorr ect l ydeni ed Laub’ s R ul e 60( b) ( 4) m ot i on, w hi ch pr ovi des reli ef fro m a jud g m en t i f “ the ju d g m en t i s v o id.” A jud g m en t i s v o id “o n lyif th e c o u rt thatr ender ed i tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on of the s ubj ectm att er , orof the part i es , ori f i tact ed i n a ma n n e ri n c o n s i s t e n twi th d u e p r o c e s s o f l a w. ” Un i o n S wi t c h & Si g n a l Di v . Am. S tand ard Inc . v . U n it ed E lec., R ad io & M ac h . W o rke rs, 9 0 0 F . 2 d 6 0 8 , 6 1 2 n . 1 (3d C ir . 19 90 ). “Iti s w el l sett l ed thatan ‘el em entaryand fun dam ental requi rem ent of du e process i n anypr ocee di ng w hi ch i s t o be ac cor ded fi nal i tyi s not i ce r eas onabl ycal cul at ed, under al l the ci r cumst ance s , t o appr i s e i nt er es t ed part i es of the pende ncyof the ac t i on and a f f o rd th e m a n o p p o rtu n ity to p re s e n t th e iro b je c tio n s .’” N u -L o o k D e s ig n , In c . v . C .I.R ., 3 5 6 F .3 d 2 9 0 , 2 9 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( q u o tin g M u lla n e v . C e n tr a l H a n o v e r B a n k & T ru s t C o ., 3 3 9 U . S . 3 0 6 , 3 1 4 (19 5 0 )). T h e D is tr ic t C o u rtd id n o t la c k s u b je c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h e c o n s e n t o rd e r. T h e C o u rt a lso d id n o t ac t in a m a n n e r in c o n sis ten t w ith th e d u e p ro c e ss o f law sin c e it not i fi ed al l know n part i es and r eopene d the ca s e w hen Laub fi l ed hi s R ul e 60( b) ( 4) m o tio n . T h e re c o rd in d ica tes th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts m a d e a re a so n a b le e f f o rt to c o n tac t all th e k n o w n p a rt ie s o f

th e la w s u it, in c lu d in g th e f o rm e r a tto rn e yw h o re p re s e n te d th e c la s s . T he mai l t o A l - Shabazz and Shar i f w as r eturned as undel i ver abl e, and Shachtm an not i fi ed th e C o u rt th a t h e w a s n o lo n g e r in v o lv e d in th e p ro c e e d in g s. T h e re w a s n o re a so n a b le5

w ayof know i ng thatL aub w as a partyt o thi s s ui t . H i s name di d notappea ri n anyof the l egal document s orcourtr ecor ds . H ow ever , even i f not i ce w as i nadequa t e, L aub w as not pr ej udi ced be caus e the D i s tr i ctC ourtr eopene d the ca s e and s eta br i efi ng s chedul e af t er h e f il ed h is R u le 60 (b)(4 ) m o ti o n . S ee B lane yv . W est, 2 0 9 F . 3 d 1 0 2 7 , 1 0 3 1 (7th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) (“ [ W ]h e n a p lain tiff h a s a n o p p o rtu n ityto re q u e st re c o n sid e ra tio n , the p lain tiff is n o t p re ju d ice d b yth e d istric t co u rt’s f a ilu re to p ro v id e a d v a n c e n o tice o f its in ten tio n to di s m i s s fordefe ct i ve s ervi ce. ”) ( ci t i ng R ui z V ar el a v. Sanchez V el ez, 814 F. 2d 821, 823 (1stC i r. 19 87 ); W hale v. U nit ed S t at es, 79 2 F . 2d 95 1, 95 2-53 (9th C i r. 19 86 )) . A s a r es ul t , L aub w as notpr ej udi ced bythe D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s fai l ur e t o not i fyhi m per s onal l yof the cons entor der ’ s t erm i nat i on. L a u b h a s n o t d e m o n stra ted th a t th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t is v o id u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b )(4 ). A s a re su lt, w e d e ter m in e th a t L a u b ’s a p p e a l is lac k in g in a rg u a b le le g a l m e rit, an d w il l dism iss i t pu rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B ).