2006 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 10-27-2006 

# In Re: Alm ahdi v

. W i lli amson 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 . 06-3908

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_2006

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 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " In Re: Alm ahd i v

. W i ll i am s on" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 282. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/282AL D- 1 7 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 . 06- 3908

________________ IN R E : JA M A L U D -D IN A L M A H D I, Pet i t i oner

____________________________________ O n a Pet i t i on forW r i tof M andamus fr om the U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( R el at ed t o M . D . Pa. N o. 05- cv- 01381)

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderR ul e 21, Fed. R . A pp. Pr o.

O ct ober13, 2006 BEFORE: SLOV I TER, M c KEE an d FI SHER, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed: O ct ober27, 2006)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM J amal ud- di n A l m ahdi , a pr i s oneratthe Feder al C orr ect i onal I ns t i tut i on at A l l enw ood i n W hi t e D eer , Penns y l vani a, pet i t i ons thi s C our tfora w r i tof m andamus o rd e rin g th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia to i m m edi at el ycons i dera mot i on t hathe cl ai m s t o have f i l ed i n J ul y2006. Forthe r eas ons s t at ed bel ow , w e w i l l denyA l m ahdi ’ s m andamus pe t i t i on.2

In 2 0 0 5 , A lm ah d i fi led a h ab ea s co rpu s p eti ti o n in the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a cha l l engi ng the val i di t yof a r egul at i on l i m i t i ng t he author i t yof the Feder al B ur eau of Pr i s ons ( “B O P”) t o r el eas e pr i s oner s t o t r ans i t i onal fac i l i t i es s uch as comm uni t ycorr ect i ons cent er s ( “C C C s ”) . B eca us e the cha l l enged r egul at i on bar s t he B O P fr om t r ans ferr i ng a pr i s onert o s uch a f aci l i t yexce pt“dur i ng t he l a s tt e n p e r c e n to f

t h e p r i s o n s e n t e n c e b e i n g s e r v e d , n o tt o e x c e e d s i x mo n t h s , ” 2 8 C. F . R. § 5 7 0 .2 1 , A lm a h d i alle g e d in h is h a b e a s p e tit io n th a t th e ru le d e n ied h im th e o p p o rtu n ity t o obt ai n a tr ans fert o a C C C ear l i erthan N ovember2006, s i x m ont hs befor e the pr oj ect ed term ination o f h is sen tenc e. W h il e A lm ah d i’ s h ab ea s ca se w as p en d ing , this C o u rt deci ded W oodal l v. Feder al B ur eau of Pr i s ons , 432 F. 3d 235 ( 3d C i r . 2005) , w hi ch i nv al i dated the B O P regul at i on on t he g round s that i tw as not consi st ent w i t h C on gress ’ m andat e thatpr i s on offi ci al s cons i dera br oad r ange of s t atut oryfac t or s i n det erm i ni ng th e p ro p e r p la c e m e n t o f f e d e ra l p ri s o n e rs . S e e id . a t 2 4 5 -4 6 (c itin g 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 6 2 1 (b )) . In sp it e o f W o o d all ’s t ac itac ce p tanc e o f so m e o f th e leg al arg u m en ts r aised in A lm ah d i’ s habea s pet i t i on, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed A l m ahdi r el i ef be caus e pr i s on offi ci al s had not y et ren d ere d a f

inal d ec isi o n as to h is C C C p lace m en t and b ec au se th e D istri ct C o u rt tru ste d th a t th e “ B O P w ill f o llo w [ W o o d a ll] . . . a n d c o n sid e r a ll rele v a n t f a c to rs in det erm i ni ng [A l m ahdi ’ s ] pr e- r el eas e pr epar at i on dat e, ” I n r e A l m ahdi , N o. 05- cv- 01381, slip o p . at 5 (M .D . P a . Ja n . 6 , 2 0 0 6 ). T h e B O P th e re a f ter in f o rm e d A lm a h d i o f

its d e c isio n to tra n sf

e r h im to a C C C o n N o v e m b e r 7 , 2 0 0 6 . A lm a h d i n o w p e tit io n s th is3

C our tfora w r i tof m andamus di r ect i ng the M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a t o actupon a “l et t erm ot i on” thathe purpor t edl yfi l ed w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our ti n J ul y2006 r eques t i ng j udi ci al r evi ew of the B O P’ s fi nal deci s i on. W e h a v e o rig in a l ju risd ictio n o v e r a p e tit io n f o r a w rit o f

m a n d a m u s th a t se e k s “ to c o n f in e a n in f

e rio r c o u rt to a law f

u l ex e rc ise o f

its p re sc rib e d ju risd ictio n o r to c o m p e l it t o exer ci s e i t s author i t yw hen i ti s i t s dutyt o do s o. ” W i l l v. U ni t ed St at es , 389 U . S. 90, 95 ( 1967) ( quot i ng R oche v. E vapor at ed M i l k A s s n. , 319 U . S. 21, 26 ( 1943) ) . A w r i tof m andamus i s an extr aor di naryr emedythatw i l l i s s ue onl yw her e ther e i s no otherr emedy avai l abl e t o t he pet i t i onerand the pet i t i oner ’ s r i ghtt o m andamus r el i ef i s cl earand in d is p u ta b le . S e e In re P re s s m a n -G u tm a n C o ., In c ., 4 5 9 F .3 d 3 8 3 , 3 9 8 -9 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T he l et t ert hatA l m ahdi cl ai m s he s entt o t he D i s t r i ctC our t , w hi ch he s ubm i t t ed al ong w i t h hi s m andamus pe t i t i on, cont ai ns an uns uppor t ed al l egat i on thatthe B O P di d not cal cul at e hi s r el eas e dat e bas ed on cons i der at i on of al l r el evantfac t or s , as i s r equi r ed af t er ourdeci s i on i n W oodal l . H ow ever , A l m ahdi has pr ovi ded no evi dence thathe fi l ed the le tte r a n d o u r i n q u ir ie s to th e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a v e y ie ld e d n o in d ic a tio n th a t h e d id s o . T her efor e, t he D i s tr i ctC our tcan ha r dl ybe fa ul t ed forfai l i ng t o actupon i t , and i s s uance of a w ri tof m and am us i s unw arr anted un der the cir cum st ances. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill d e n yA lm a h d i’s p e tit io n . A lm a h d i’s m o tio n to expedi t e the pet i t i on i s deni ed.