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 5-3-2006 

# R id ley v . S mith 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 . 04-4273

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 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 " R idley v . S mith" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1161. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1161NOT 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. 04- 4273

___________ DAR E N E . RI DL E Y, A ppel l ant v. J O SE PH V . SM I T H , W ar den

_______________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct 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 ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 04- cv- 01854) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sy l vi a H . R ambo

__________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 14, 2006 B efore: R O T H , R E N D E L L and A M B R O , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: M ay3, 2006)

_____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

______________ P E R C UR I AM I n 1994, D ar en R i dl eypl ed gui l tyi n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe Sout hern D i s tr i ctof I ndi ana t o cons pi r acyt o pos s es s w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e coc ai ne b a s e . R i d l e y w a s s e n t e n c e d t o a t e r m o f 3 9 0 m o n th s i m p r i s o n m e n t , t o b e f o l l o w e d b y a2

fi ve y earper i od of s upervi s ed r el eas e, and w as or der ed t o paya fi ne of $ 25, 000, w i thout i nt er es t , pur s uantt o t he V i ct i m and W i tnes s Pr ot ect i on A ct( “V W PA ”) . I n i t s j udgm ent and comm i t m entor der , the s ent enci ng courtdi d notr equi r e i m m edi at e paym entof the fin e o r pro v ide a sch ed u le of install m en ts. Instea d , the s en tenc ing co u rto rde red R idley ’s fi ne t o be pai d “i n i ns t al l m ent s . . . thr ough the B ur eau of Pr i s ons ’ I nm at e Fi nanci al R e sp o n sib ili tyP ro g ra m [ “ IF R C ” ] w ith th e b a lan c e p a id o n su p e rv ise d re lea se in m o n th ly i ns t al l m ent s of notl es s than $ 50. 00. ” O n A u g u s t 8 , 2 0 0 4 , R id le yf ile d th e u n d e rl y in g p e titio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 in 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. In h is pet i t i on, R i dl eyar gued thati ti s the dutyof the s ent enci ng courtt o des i gnat e the t i m i ng and amountof i ns t al l m entpaym ent s on al l fi nes w her e i m m edi at e paym enti s notr equi r ed a n d re q u e ste d th a t h e b e re m o v e d f ro m h is IF R C p a ym e n t p lan u n til su c h tim e a s h e is r es ent ence d. T he r es pondentfi l ed an a ns w eras s ert i ng thatR i dl ey ’ s § 2241 pet i t i on s houl d be di s m i s s ed forfai l ur e t o exhaus tadmi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es . B yor derent er ed O ct ober25, 2004, the D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatR i dl ey ’ s cl ai m w as an att ack upon the t erm s of the 1994 s ent enci ng or deri ns ofaras i tfai l ed t o s eta paym ents chedul e forthe $ 25, 000 fi ne. B ecaus e the D i s tr i ctC our tvi ew ed R i dl ey ’ s cl ai m as an att ack upon the t erm s of hi s s ent ence , i tdet erm i ned thathi s r emedyl ayi n a mot i on fi l ed i n the s ent enci ng courtunder28 U . S. C . § 2255. N onethel es s , the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed R i dl ey ’ s pet i t i on as t i m e- barr ed underthe one- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons s etfor th i n the A nt i - T err or i s m and3

E f f e c tiv e D e a th P e n a lty A c t o f 1 9 9 6 . R idleyfil ed a ti m elym o ti o n fo r reco n side rati o n o f th e O ctob er 2 5 , 2 0 0 4 , o rde r, ar gui ng thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n cons trui ng hi s pet i t i on as a mot i on fi l ed pur s uant t o § 2255. B yor derent er ed A pr i l 25, 2005, the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed i n partand deni ed i n partR i dl ey ’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on. Speci fi cal l y , the D i s tr i ctC our tm ai nt ai ned th a t, t o th e e x ten t th a t R id ley w a s a ttem p tin g to c h a llen g e th e v a lid ityo f h is s e n ten c e , h is claim co u ld n o t be p rese n ted in a § 2 2 4 1 p eti ti o n . N o n ethe less, the D istri ct C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t it e rr e d in d is m is s in g R id le y ’s p e titio n a s a n u n tim e ly f ile d § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n . T h e D istric t C o u rt f

u rth e r d e ter m in e d th a t, t o th e e x ten t th a t R id ley w a s a ttem p tin g to chal l enge the condi t i ons of hi s confi nement , a § 2241 pet i t i on w as the pr opervehi cl e but thatR i dl eyhad fa i l ed t o exhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es pr i ort o fi l i ng hi s § 2241 pet i t i on. A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed R i dl ey ’ s pet i t i on w i thoutpr ej udi ce, n o tin g th a t h e c o u ld f

ile h is § 2 2 5 5 c laim in th e se n ten c in g c o u rt a n d h is § 2 2 4 1 c laim w hen hi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es w er e exha us t ed. T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. R i dl eyi s chal l engi ng the Feder al B ur eau of Pr i s ons ’ ( “B O P”) author i tyt o s ett he t i m i ng and amountof the paym ent s t o hi s fi ne w hi l e he i s i ncar cer at ed. R i dl eycont ends th a t b e c a u se h e is a ttac k in g o n lyth e e x e c u tio n o f h is s e n ten c e , the D istric t C o u rt e rre d to th e e x t e n tth a ti tc o n c l u d e d th a tth e p r o p e rv e h i c l e f o rh i s c l a i m i s a § 2 2 5 5 m o t i o n . We agr ee. R i dl ey ’ s chal l enge goe s di r ect l yt o the exe cut i on of hi s s ent ence . A s s uch, the cl ai m fal l s s quar el yw i thi n t hos e pr oper l yr ai s ed i n a pet i t i on forw r i tof habe as corpusW e not e thaton J ul y1, 2004, R i dl eyfi l ed i n the s ent enci ng courta mot i on 1 s eeki ng m odi fi cat i on of the t erm s of hi s s ent ence . I n hi s m ot i on, R i dl eyar gued thatt he s ent enci ng courti m pr oper l ydel egat ed t o the B O P t he author i tyt o des i gnat e the t i m i ng and amountof paym ent s t o hi s fi ne. B yor derent er ed J ul y19, 2004, the D i s tr i ctC our tfor th e S o u th e rn D istric t o f In d ian a d e n ied R id ley’s m o tio n w ith o u t p re ju d ice , n o tin g th a t h is “com plai nt . . . l i es w i th the m ann er i n w hich the sentence i s bei ng execu t ed, w hich i s a p ro p e r su b

jec t f o r re d re ss th ro u g h a n a c tio n f o r a w rit o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s in th e d istric t in w h ic h h e is c o n f

in e d .” 4 u n d e r § 2 2 4 1 . S e e C o a d yv . V a u g h n , 2 5 1 F .3 d 4 8 0 , 4 8 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ); se e a lso M u jah id v . C ra b tr e e , 9 9 9 F .S u p p . 1 3 9 8 , 1 4 0 1 (D . O r. 1 9 9 8 ), a f f ’d 1 7 2 F .3 d 5 7 (9 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). M or eover , num er ous court s have r ecogni zed that“§ 2255' s l anguage cl ear l yand u n a m b ig u o u slylim its its a p p lica b ili tyto d e f e n d a n ts s e e k in g re lea se f ro m c u sto d y . It i s notavai l abl e t o t hos e, l i ke the def endant , w ho chal l enge onl yfi nes orr es t i tut i on or der s . ” U nit ed S t at es v. K ram er, 19 5 F . 3d 11 29 , 11 30 (9th C i r. 19 99 ) ( coll ect i ng cases) . T hu s, even i f R i dl eyw as chal l engi ng the t erm s of hi s fi ne pers e ( w hi ch he i s notdoi ng) , he coul d notr ai s e thatcl ai m i n t he s ent enci ng courtthr ough a § 2255 mot i on. B arni ckel v. 1 U n ited S tate s, 1 1 3 F .3 d 7 0 4 , 7 0 6 (7 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) (e x p lain in g th a t § 2 2 5 5 is n o t av a ilab le t o chal l enge a fi ne oror derof r es t i tut i on i m pos ed as partof a c r i m i nal s ent ence ) . For thes e r eas ons , w e conc l ude thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d have c ons trued R i dl ey ’ s pet i t i on a s o n e f iled so lelyp u rsu a n t to § 2 2 4 1 , an d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in so f a r a s it cons trued R i dl ey ’ s pet i t i on as a mot i on fi l ed pur s uantt o § 2255. N everthel es s , the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entcan be aff i r m ed bec aus e R i dl eyfai l ed t o exhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es pr i ort o fi l i ng hi s § 2241 pet i t i on. A fede r al5

p riso n e r o rd in a rilym u st e x h a u st h is a d m in istra tiv e re m e d ies b e f o re p e tit io n in g f

o r a w rit of habe as corpus pur s uantt o § 2241. M os cat o v. Feder al B ur eau of Pr i s ons , 98 F. 3d 757, 7 6 0 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 6 ) ; s e e a l s o Ca l l wo o d v . E n o s , 2 3 0 F . 3 d 6 2 7 , 6 3 4 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( “ we h av e c o n sist en tl yap p li ed an ex h au sti o n req u ir em en t t o claim s b rou g h t un d er § 2 2 4 1 ”). I f a pet i t i onerhas fai l ed t o exhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es pr i ort o fi l i ng a § 2241 pet i t i on, the D i s tr i ctC our tm ayi n i t s di s cr et i on ei ther“exc us e the fa ul tyexhaus t i on and rea ch the m erit s, o r req u ir e the p eti ti o n er to e x h au st his ad m inistrati v e re m ed ies b ef o re p ro c e e d in g in c o u rt .” B ro w n v . R is o n , 8 9 5 F .2 d 5 3 3 , 5 3 5 (9 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ), a b ro g a tedin par ton othergr ounds by R eno v. K or ay , 515 U . S. 50 ( 1995) ; s ee a l s o G r eene v. M ees e, 875 F. 2d 639, 643 ( 7th C i r . 1989) ( expl ai ni ng thatexhaus t i on of admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es is n o t a ju risd ictio n a l p re re q u isite) . It i s u n d isp u ted th a t R id ley fa iled to e x h a u st h is admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es pr i ort o fi l i ng hi s § 2241 pet i t i on i n the D i s tr i ctC our t . U nder thes e c ir cu m stan ce s, the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n in d ism issi n g R idley ’s pet i t i on forfai l ur e t o exhaus t . B eca us e the di s m i s s al w as w i thoutpr ej udi ce, R i dl eym ay fi l e a ne w § 2241 pet i t i on now thathi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es appea rt o be exha us t ed. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s A pr i l 25, 2005, o rde r.