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 Third C ir c uit 5-2-2006 

# Ja ckson v . C arroll 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 . 04-9012

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2006

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 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 Third C irc 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 by 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 more 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 " Ja cks on v . C arro ll " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1165. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2006/1165A m ended - See C l erk’ s O r derdat ed J anuary6, 2005. 1 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 . 04- 9012

________________ R O B E R T W . JA C K S O N , III , A ppel l ant v. T H O M A S C A R R O L L , W ar den 1

____________________________________ 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 D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D . C . C i v. N o. 01- cv- 00552) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sue L. R obi ns on

_______________________________________ B efore: M C K E E , R E N D E L L and G R E E N B E R G , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed M ay2, 2006)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM A s the part i es ar e fa m i l i arw i th the bac kgr ound of thi s capi t al cas e, w e nee d nots et i tf o r th h e r e . F o rp r e s e n tp u rp o s e s i ti s s u f f i c i e n tt o n o t e th a to n De c e mb e r2 0 , 2 0 0 5 , we d e n ied Ja c k so n ’s a p p lica tio n f o r a c e rtific a te o f

a p p e a lab ili ty . S e e Ja c k so n v . C a rro ll,2

2005 W L 3477556. T he mandat e i s s ued on J anuary12, 2006. O n M ar ch 14, 2006, the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tgr ant ed J acks on an ext ens i on of t i m e – unt i l M ay19, 2006

– to f ile a p e tit io n f

o r a w rit o f

c e rtio ra ri. M a y1 9 , 2 0 0 6 , is a lso th e d a te f o r w h ich h is exec ut i on has been s chedul ed. M eanw hi l e, the O ffi ce of the Feder al C om m uni tyD efe nderhas ent er ed an a p p e a ra n c e in th e S u p re m e C o u rta n d is e v id e n tly p re p a ri n g J a c k s o n ’s c e rt io ra ri p e titio n . A ccor di ngl y , J acks on has fi l ed a mot i on t o r eca l l the mandat e and f ors t ayof exe cut i on “t o al l ow ful l and fa i rr evi ew of the ce r t i or ar i pr ocee di ngs . ” I n s uppor tther eof, he ar gues th a t th e m o tio n sh o u ld b e g ra n ted to p re v e n t an in ju stic e . Ja c k so n e x p lain s th a t th e o n ly r eas on w hythe exe cut i on dat e w as s etas ear l yas M ay19, 2006, i s thataft erw e deni ed hi s r eques tfora ce r t i fi cat e of appeal abi l i ty , couns el – T hom as M . Fol ey , E s q. – e rr o n e o u s ly re p re s e n te d in s ta te c o u rtth a t J a c k s o n w o u ld n o t p u rs u e f u rt h e r l itig a tio n . I “I s s uance of the mandat e form al l ym arks the end of appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on. ” Jo h n so n v . B ec h tel A sso ciates P rof essio n al C o rp., D . C . , 8 0 1 F . 2 d 4 1 2 , 4 1 5 (D . C . C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) ; s e e Un i t e d S t a t e s v . J e rry , 4 8 7 F . 2 d 6 0 0 , 6 0 7 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 7 3 ) . As a r e s u l t , we cannotrul e on the mot i on t o s t ayexec ut i on unl es s w e r eca l l the mandat e. T h e S u p rem e C o u rth as e x p lai n ed that alth o u g h “the co u rt s o f a p p ea ls are r ecogni zed t o have a n i nher entpow ert o r eca l l thei rm andat es , s ubj ectt o r evi ew foran a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . . . th e p o w e r c a n b e e x e rc is e d o n ly in e x tr a o rd in a ry c ir c u m s ta n c e s . .T h u s, th e C o u rt w e n t o n to h o ld th a t “w h e re a f e d e ra l co u rt o f

a p p e a ls s u a sp o n te 2 r eca l l s i t s m andat e t o r evi s i tthe mer i t s of an e ar l i erdeci s i on deny i ng habea s corpus r el i ef t o a s t at e pr i s oner , the courtabus es i t s di s cr et i on unl es s i tact s t o avoi d a mi s carr i age of j us t i c e a s de fi ne d b you rha be a s c orpu s j ur i s prud e nc e . ” Cal de r on v. Thomps on , 52 3 U. S. 5 3 8 , 5 5 8 (19 9 8 ). J acks on not es thati n H ol l ow ayv. H orn, C . A . N os . 01- 9009 & 9010, w e r eca l l ed the 3 m a n d a te to g iv e th e C o m m o n w e a lth a n o p p o rt u n ity to p u rs u e a c e rt io ra ri p e titio n . H o w e v e r, in H o llo w a y , the C o m m o n w e a lth h a d n o t f iled a c e rtio ra ri p e tit io n w h e n it a sk e d u s to re c a ll th e m a n d a te. O u r o rd e r g ra n ted th e m o tio n to re c a ll th e m a n d a te p u rsu a n t to F e d . R . A p p . P . 4 1 (b ) in o rd e r “ to g iv e th e C o m m o n w e a lth a n o p p o rtu n ityto f ile a tim e lyP e tit io n f

o r C e rtio ra ri.” S e e O rd e r d a ted A p ril 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 . B yc o n tra st, J acks on i s al r eadypur s ui ng a pet i t i on fora w r i tof ce r t i or ar i . T he othercas es ci t ed by J acks on ar e s i m i l ar l ydi ffe r ent . See H er cul es I nc. v. U ni t ed St at es , 309 F. 3d 781 ( Fed. 3 . [ a n d ] i s o n e o f

la s t r e s o rt , to b e h e ld in re s e rv e a g a in s t g ra v e , u n f o re s e e n c o n tin g e n c ie s .” C a ld e ro n v . T h o m p so n , 5 2 3 U .S . 5 3 8 , 5 4 9 -5 5 0 (1 9 9 8 ) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). M o re o v e r, in fede r al habea s corpus pr ocee di ngs court s s houl d cons i der“notonl y. . . s t andar ds of g e n e ra l ap p lica tio n , b u t als o . . . the sta tu to rya n d ju risp ru d e n tial lim its a p p lica b le in habea s corpus cas es . ” I d. at553. 2 T he r eas on J acks on gi ves forr eca l l i ng the mandat e amount s t o l i t t l e more than the need f orm or e t i m e t o pr epar e hi s cert i or ar i pet i t i on and, as s uch, pl ai nl yfai l s t o m eetthe sta n d a rd f

o r re c a lli n g th e m a n d a te. E v e n a ss u m in g th a t F o ley’s m iss tate m e n t in sta te c o u rt , re s u ltin g in th e M a ye x e c u tio n d a te , q u a lif ie s a s a “ g ra v e , u n f

o re s e e n c o n tin g e n c y ,” r eca l l i ng the mandat e i s farfr om a “l as tr es or t ” i n thi s cont ext . J acks on has been gr ant ed an ext ens i on of t i m e bythe Supr eme C our tand ca n s eek a s t ayof exe cut i on fr om that C our t . W hen the norm al avenue of r el i ef i s notonl yavai l abl e butpendi ng, ther e i s no need t o resor tt o ex traor dinarym eans. 3C i r . 2002) ( gr ant i ng m ot i on t o al l ow appel l antt o fi l e ce r t i or ar i pet i t i on w her e appe l l ant

had s how n good caus e and appel l ee ha d gi ven condi t i onal cons ent ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. H in d s, 2 0 0 2 W L 3 2 0 7 6 9 3 2 (4 C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (g ra n tin g m o tio n to a llo w a p p e llan t to f ile th p eti ti o n fo r reh ea ri n g an d ce rt iorari pe ti ti o n w h ere ap p ell an t had sh o w n “e x tr ao rdin ary ci rcum st ances”). N ei ther decis i on i nv olved fed eral hab eas corpus proceed i ng s. II F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s w e d e n yJ a c k s o n ’s m o tio n to re c a ll th e m a n d a te . A ccor di ngl yw e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o rul e on hi s m ot i on t o s t ayexec ut i on and, ther efor e, d i s mi s s th a tmo t i o n wi th o u tp r e j u d i c e t o h i s f

i l i n g a n o th e rs t a ymo t i o n i n th e S u p r e me C o u rt.

T O T HE CL E RK : Pl eas e fi l e the for egoi ng opi ni on.