CL D- 2 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. 10- 1872

___________ J AM E S M UR RA Y, A ppel l ant v . B. A. BL E DS OE ; UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA .

____________________________________ 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 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. 10- 00576) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e R i char d P. C onaboy

____________________________________ S u b m itt e d f

o r P o ss ib le S u m m a ryA c tio n P u rsu 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 17, 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 y8, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM I n M ar ch 2010, J ames M urr ay , a fe der al pr i s oner , fi l ed a pe t i t i on fora w r i tof h ab ea s co rpu s p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 4 1 see k ing im m ed iat e re lease fro m “2 4 h o u r a daycus t odyi n cel l confi nement ” atU SP L ew i s bur g and a tr ans fert o the “F- 2 uni t ” atI n hi s habea s pet i t i on, M urr ayal s o s t at ed thatan admi ni s tr at i ve r eques tfor 1 i m m edi at e r el eas e fr om 24- hour - a- daycel l confi nementhad bee n deni ed, r efe rr i ng the D istric t C o u rt to a d o c u m e n t h e f iled in a c a se b e f

o re th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls forthe Si xth C i r cui t , M urr ayv. R i os , etal . , C . A . 09- 5353. R evi ew of thatdocument , and o thers f il ed in the S ixth C ir cu itca se, do n o t she d m u ch ad d it ion al l igh t on M u rray ’s p r e s e n tc l a i m. M urr ayfi l ed pl eadi ngs i n the Si xth C i r cui tal l egi ng thatU ni t ed St at es B ur eau of Pr i s ons ( “B O P”) offi ci al s w er e hi nder i ng hi s eff or t s t o pur s ue admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es for gr i evanc es and w er e goi ng t o tr ans ferhi m t o a Speci al M anage m entU ni t( “SM U ”) at U SP L ew i s bur g i n r et al i at i on forpur s ui ng hi s “r i ght s . ” The docum entt o w hi ch he r efe rr ed the D i s tr i ctC our ti s a l ett ert o the D i r ect orof the B O P, i n w hi ch M urr aym akes r ecomm endat i ons forchange s i n the admi ni s tr at i on of SM U s . ( See C . A . 09- 5353, doc. # 00617114177. ) A boutone mont h befor e he f i l ed hi s habea s pet i t i on, M urr ayfi l ed a “ N ot i c e ” i n h i s Si xth Ci r c ui tc a s e s t a t i ng tha the ha s be e n i n the SM U pr og r a m atU SPLe wi s b u r g s i n c e Au g u s t2 0 0 9 a n d th a tp r i s o n o f f i c i a l s u n l a wf

u l l ymo v e d h i m f

r o m a “ce l l w i th a s how er ” t o a “c el l w i th no s how er , et c. beca us e he ha s deci ded nott o t ake parti n the U . S. P. L ew i s bur g SM U pr ogr am for l egi t i m at e r eas ons . ” ( See C . A . 09- 5353, d o c . # 0 0 6 1 9 2 4 2 5 6 2 .) N o n e o f th e se d o c u m e n ts re f

e r to th e 2 4 -h o u r-a -d a yc e ll confi nementforw hi ch he pr es ent l ys eeks habea s r el i ef. 2 a n o th e r p e n iten tiary. A t th e sa m e tim e , M u rra yf iled a m o tio n to e n

jo in c e rta in governm entoffi ci al s fr om changi ng hi s cus t odys t atus ort aki ng anyr et al i at oryact i on a g a in st h im f

o r f ili n g th e h a b e a s p e tit io n . M u rra yp re se n ted n o f a c ts o r b a c k g ro u n d to expl ai n the bas i s forhi s cl ai m forr el i ef, and hi s pet i t i on cons i s t s m ai nl yof the fol l ow i ng 1 st at em ents : P e titio n e r’ s c u s to d yin c e ll c o n f in e m e n t is th a t o f

a n in d iv id u a lis t. P eti ti o n er’s cu stod yin ce ll co n fin em en t i s n o t vo lun tary . P eti ti o n er’s cus t odyi n cel l confi nementi s notm ade mandat orybycongr es s i onal m andat e. Pet i t i oner ’ s cus t odyi n cel l confi nementhas notr ece i ved the w ri tte n a p p ro v a l o f

th e U n ite d S ta te s A tto rn e yG e n e ra l E ri c H o ld e r. Pet i t i oner ’ s cus t odyi n cel l confi nementi s exce s s i ve. (H a b e a s P e t. a t 2 -3 .)3

A few day s aft erthe pet i t i on w as fi l ed, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed i t , concl udi ng thatM urr ay ’ s cl ai m w as notcogni zabl e under§ 2241 beca us e he di d notchal l enge the l egal i tyordur at i on of hi s confi nement , orthe exe cut i on of hi s s ent ence , butr atheran al l egedl yi m pr opercondi t i on of hi s confi nement . T he di s m i s s al w as or der ed w i thout pr ej udi ce t o the fi l i ng of a c i vi l r i ght s compl ai nt . T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o di s m i s s ed M u rra y ’s m o tio n f

o r a p re lim in a ryin

ju n c tio n w ith o u t p re

ju d ice . M u rra yf

iled th is tim e ly a p p e a l.W e hav e j uri sdi ct i on ov er this app eal un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. W e exerci se pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s tr i ctC our t ' s l egal concl us i ons , and r evi ew anyfac tual fi ndi ngs forcl earerr or . See V ega v. U ni t ed St at es , 493 F. 3d 310, 314 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . M urr ay c o n ten d s th a t h is c laim f o r re lea se f

ro m th e a lleg e d lyu n law f u l 2 4 -h o u r-a -d a yc e ll confi nementi s pr oper l ybr oughti n a habe as pet i t i on under§ 2241. W e, how ever , agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthathi s cl ai m does notl i e atthe “c or e of ha beas ” and i s thus not cogni zabl e under§ 2241. M urr ay ’ s compl ai ntr egar di ng cel l confi nementdoes notchal l enge the fa ctor dur at i on of hi s i m pr i s onm ent , w hi ch i s the es s ence of habe as . See Pr ei s erv. R odr i guez, 411 U . S. 475, 484, 487 ( 1973) . A s w e have expl ai ned: [W ] heneve rthe cha l l enge ul t i m at el yatt acks the ‘ cor e of ha beas ’ - - the v ali d ityo f th e c o n ti n u ed co n v ict ion o r th e f ac t or l en g th o f th e se n tenc e -- a c h a lle n g e . . . m u s t b e b ro u g h t b yw a yo f a h a b e a s c o rp u s p e titio n . C o n v e rse ly , w h e n th e c h a llen g e is to a c o n d iti o n o f c o n f in e m e n t su c h th a t a f in d in g in p lain tiff ’s f

a v o r w o u ld n o t alte r h is s e n ten c e o r u n d o h is convi ct i on, a [c i vi l r i ght s act i on] i s appr opr i at e.4

L eamerv. Fauver , 288 F. 3d 532, 542 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . M urr ay ’ s cl ai m has no bear i ng on the v al i dityof h i s conv i ct i on , no r does he clai m that he i s ent i t l ed to a speedierrel ease f ro m p riso n . F u rth e rm o re , h e h a s n o t ra ise d a c laim th a t in v o lv e s th e e x e c u tio n o f h is s ent ence as cont empl at ed i n W oodal l v. Fed. B ur eau of Pr i s ons , 432 F. 3d 235, 243- 44 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . W e thus agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthathi s cl ai m i s a cha l l enge t o the condi t i ons of hi s confi nementthatw oul d be appr opr i at el ybr oughti n an ac t i on under B i vens v. Si x U nknow n N amed A gent s of the Fed. B ur eau of N ar cot i cs , 403 U . S. 388 (19 7 1 ). B ec au se n o su b stan ti al qu esti o n is prese n ted b ythis ap p ea l, the D istri ct C o u rt ’s o rde r dism issi n g the p eti ti o n w ith o u t prejud ice w il l be s u m m aril yaf firm ed . S ee 3 d C ir . L . A . R . 27. 4; 3d C i r . I . O . P. 10. 6.