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 7-9-2010 

# Mich a el C ro ok

e r v . W arde n F C I Lorett o 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 . 10-1720

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 " Mich a e l C r oo ke r v

. W ar de n F C I L or e tt o " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 977. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/977CL D- 2 1 8 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. 10- 1720

___________ M I CHAEL AL AN CROOK ER, A ppel l ant v . W AR DEN , FCI LOR ETTO

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 10- cv- 00051) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e K i m R . G i bs on

____________________________________ S u b mi t t 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 J une 10, 2010 B efore: B A R R Y , F ISH E R and G R E E N A W A Y , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: J ul y9, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . §§ 1291 and 2253. I n det erm i ni ng 1 w h e th e r a d istric t co u rt p ro p e rlyd e n ied a p e tit io n f o r h a b e a s c o rp u s b ro u g h t p u rsu a n t to 28 U . S. C . § 2241, w e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overt he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s l egal concl us i ons and appl ya cl ear l yerr oneous s t andar d t o i t s fac tual fi ndi ngs . See C r adl e v. U ni t ed St at es ex rel. M iner, 29 0 F . 3 d 5 3 6 , 5 3 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). 2 P E R C UR I AM A ppel l ant , a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pro se , appea l s t he D i s t r i ctC our tor der deny i ng hi s pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus under28 U . S. C . § 2241. B eca us e the 1 ap p ea l do es n o t prese n t a su b stan ti al qu esti o n , w e w il l sum m aril yaf firm . S ee 3 d C ir . L A R 27. 4; 3d C i r . I O P 10. 6. I n February2010, C r ookerfi l ed a pe t i t i on under§ 2241 al l egi ng t hat , as a pr i s oner atF C I Lo rett o, he h ad b een im properl ysanct i on ed fo r vi olat i ng B O P dis ci pli naryrul es, b u t w a s e x o n e ra ted a f

ter a n a d m in istra tiv e a p p e a l. C ro o k e r c laim e d th a t h e in ten d e d to fi l e a s ui tfordamages under28 U . S. C . § 1495 – t he unj us tconvi ct i on s t atut e – and s o u g h tf r o m th e Di s t r i c tCo u r ta “ c e r t i f i c a t e o f i n n o c e n c e , ” a s p r o v i d e d f o rb y2 8 U. S . C. § 2513. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the r eques toverC r ooker ’ s obj ect i ons , r eas oni ng t hat C r ooker ’ s s ui tw oul d be fr i vol ous beca us e a r ever s ed di s ci pl i narys anct i on does not amount t o a r ever s ed convi ct i on t hatw oul d pr ovi de the bas i s fora s ui tunder§ 1495, and th a t th e D is tr ic t C o u rt la c k e d a u th o ri ty to is s u e a “ c e rt if ic a te o f in n o c e n c e .” A p e rso n w h o in ten d s to f ile a su it u n d e r § 1 4 9 5 m u st d e m o n stra te th a t h is convi ct i on w as r ever s ed, and “[ p] r oof of the r equi s i t e fa ct s s hal l be bya ce r t i fi cat e of the cou rt o r p a rd o n w h e re in su c h f a c ts a re a lleg e d to a p p e a r. . . .” § 2 5 1 3 (b ) (e m p h a sis3

ad d ed ). In d en y ing the p eti ti o n , the D istri ct C o u rtrea so n ed that b ec au se C roo k er’s di s ci pl i narys anct i on w as s etas i de byan admi ni s t r at i ve appe al s boar d, t he pl ai n l anguage of § 2513 perm i t t ed onl yt hatboar d t o i s s ue a c er t i fi cat e of i nnocenc e. W e agr ee. I n hi s obj ect i ons , C r ookerar gued thatt he D i s t r i ctC our thad the author i t yt o i s s ue a c e rtific a te o f

in n o c e n c e , an d c ited R o b e rso n v . U n ited S tate s, 1 2 4 F . S u p p . 8 5 7 , 8 6 1 (C t. C l . 1954) . I n R ober s on, t he C our tof C l ai m s r eas oned – butdi d notexpr es s l yhol d – t hat a D i s t r i ctC our thad the author i t yt o i s s ue R ober s on a ce r t i fi cat e of i nnocenc e bec aus e that cour ts etas i de hi s convi ct i on on a w r i tof habe as corpus . See i d. at861- 63. I tdi d not su g g e st, h o w e v e r, th a t a D istric t C o u rt m a yiss u e a c e rtific a te o f in n o c e n c e m e re ly beca us e i tent er t ai ns a habe as pet i t i on. T hus , R ober s on has no bear i ng on C r ooker ’ s cas e, as t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d nots etas i de hi s di s ci pl i narys anct i on. B eca us e w e agr ee thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tcoul d noti s s ue C r ookera ce r t i fi cat e of i n n o c e n c e , w e n e e d n o tc o n s i d e ri t s o t h e rr e a s o n s f o rd e n yi n g h i s p e t i t i o n . A c c o r d i n g l y, we wi l l s u mma r i l ya f

f i r m.