2005 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 7-12-2005 

# Ru s sell v . Pugh 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 . 04-1301

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_2005

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 2005 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 us s ell v . P u gh" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 873. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/873NOT 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 S. 04- 1301 and 04- 2034

____________________________________ 

### RO BE RT PE TE R R

US SE LL , Appe l l ant

v. M. V. PU GH

____________________________________ 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 v. N o. 03- cv- 01602) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M a lco lm M u ir

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

J ul y1, 2005 Be f o r e : ALI TO, SM I TH A ND CO W EN, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed J ul y12, 2005)

_______________________ OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM A ppel l ant , R obertR us s el l , appea l s the or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfor the M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a di s m i s s i ng hi s pet i t i on forw r i tof habe as corpus fi l ed pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2241, and i t s s ubs equentor derdeny i ng hi s m ot i on t o s etas i de the ju d g m e n t w h ich w a s f

iled p u rsu a n t to F e d . R . C iv . P . 6 0 (b ). W e h a v e ju risd ictio n to2

r evi ew the fi nal deci s i on of the D i s tr i ctC our tpur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. For es s ent i al l ythe r eas ons s etfor th i n t he M agi s tr at e J udge’ s R eportand R ecomm endat i on, wh i c h wa s a d o p t e d b yth e Di s tr i c tCo u r t , we wi l l a f f i r m. R u s s e ll is s e rv in g a lif

e s e n te n c e o n h is c o n v ic tio n f o r f ir s t d e g re e m u rd e r. R us s el l ’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence w er e af fi r m ed on di r ectappea l bythe U ni t ed St at es C o u rto f A p p ea ls fo r th e F o u rth C ir cu it , see U n it ed S tat es v . R u ssell, 9 7 1 F . 2 d 1 0 9 8 (4 th C i r . 1992) , and the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tdeni ed cert i orari . R u ss e ll su b se q u e n tly fi l ed a mot i on i n the s ent enci ng courtfora new tr i al pur s uantt o Fed. R . C r i m . P. 33 bas ed on new l ydi s cover ed evi dence or , i n the al t ernat i ve, a mot i on t o vaca t e hi s convi ct i on and sen tenc e p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 5 . T h e U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e E astern D i stri ctof V i rgi nia deni ed thatm oti on as w el l as appe l l ant’ s subsequ entl y -fi l ed requ est forr el i ef unde rFed. R . C i v. P. 60( b) . R us s el l ’ s appl i cat i on forauthor i zat i on t o fi l e a se c o n d o r su c c e ss iv e § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n f a re d n o b e tter, a n d w a s d e n ied b yth e F o u rth C irc u it C our tof A ppeal s i n an or derdat ed M ar ch 2, 2001. R us s el l then fi l ed the under l y i ng pet i t i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2241, as s ert i ng the fol l ow i ng cl ai m s : 1) the governm entdeni ed hi m a fa i rtr i al byw i thhol di ng excul pat oryevi dence ; 2) he di d notr ece i ve a f ai rtr i al due t o a patt ern of governm ent m i s conduct ; 3) he w as deni ed hi s Si xth A m endmentr i ghtt o eff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el ; and 4) the cont i nued i ncar cer at i on of an i nnocentper s on cons t i tut es cruel and unus ual puni s hm entand vi ol at es the Ei ghth A m endmentof the U ni t ed St at es3

C o n stitu tio n . R u ss e ll state s th a t C laim s 2 a n d 3 w e re p re se n ted to th e F o u rth C irc u it C our tof A ppeal s i n hi s appl i cat i on forauthor i zat i on t o fi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 m ot i on, butthatthe s ubs t ance of thes e cl ai m s w as notaddr es s ed i n l i ghtof the fa ctthat an appl i cat i on forauthor i zat i on t o fi l e a s econd § 2255 mot i on does notperm i ta dec i s i on on the mer i t s of the cl ai m s r ai s ed ther ei n. H e furtherar gues thata cl ai m of “a ctual i nnocenc e” a l l ow s a pet i t i onert o bypas s the one- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons per i od s et for th i n the A nt i t err or i s m and Effec t i ve D eath Penal tyA ctof 1996 ( “A E D PA ”) and the due di l i gence pr ovi s i on forauthor i zat i on t o fi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 mot i on, and t o pr ocee d w i th an appl i cat i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus under§ 2241 v ia § 2 2 5 5 's s avi ngs cl aus e. B eca us e he now as s ert s a cl ai m of “a ctual i nnocenc e, ” R us s el l cont ends thathe s houl d be perm i t t ed t o pr ocee d w i th a § 2241 pet i t i on chal l engi ng hi s convi ct i on. R u ssell’ s p eti ti o n w as re fe rred to a M ag istrate Ju d g e w h o issue d a R ep o rt r ecomm endi ng thati tbe di s m i s s ed. O verR us s el l ’ s obj ect i ons , the D i s tr i ctC our tadopt ed the M agi s tr at e J udge’ s R eportand R ecomm endat i on and di s m i s s ed the pet i t i on. T he D i s tr i ctC our tl i kew i s e deni ed R us s el l ’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on fi l ed pur s uantt o Fed. R . C iv . P . 5 9 (e ) a n d h is m o tio n s e e k in g re lie f f ro m ju d g m e n t u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b )( 2 ) a n d (3 ). R us s el l appea l s both the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s § 2241 pet i t i on ( appea l docket ed a tC. A. No . 0 4 - 1 3 0 1 ) a n d i t s d e c i s i o n d e n y i n g h i s Ru l e 6 0 ( b ) mo t i o n ( d o c k e t e d a tC. A. N o. 04- 2034) . B yO r derof the C l erk, the tw o appea l s have be en cons ol i dat ed. O u r re v iew o f

th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e c isio n to d ism iss R u ss e ll’s § 2 2 4 1 p e tit io n is4

p l e n a ry , s e e Cr a d l e v . U. S . e x r e l . M i n e r , 2 9 0 F . 3 d 5 3 6 , 5 3 8 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) , a n d we r evi ew the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or der s deny i ng hi s m ot i ons fi l ed underR ul es 59( e) and 60( b) foran abus e of di s cr et i on. See M ax’ s Seafood Café v. Q ui nt er os , 176 F. 3d 669, 673 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ; B r ow n v. Phi l a. H ous . A uth. , 350 F. 3d 338, 342 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthatR us s el l has notdemonstr at ed that§ 2255 i s i nadequa t e or i neff ect i ve i n the i ns t antcas e. A § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n is, o f

c o u rse , the p re su m p tiv e m e a n s f o r a f e d e ra l p riso n e r to chal l enge the val i di tyof hi s convi ct i on ors ent ence , unl es s s uch a mot i on w oul d be “i nad equ at e or i neff

ect i ve to t estthe legal i tyof h i s det enti on . ” O kereke v . U nit ed S t at es, 3 0 7 F .3 d 1 1 7 , 1 2 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ); 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . A s th e M a g istra te J u d g e c o rre c tly concl uded, § 2255 i s noti nadequa t e ori neff ect i ve mer el ybeca us e a pr i orm ot i on has been uns ucce s s ful ora pet i t i oneri s unabl e t o m eetthe s tr i ngentgat ekee pi ng r equi r ement s for fi l i ng a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 mot i on underA E D PA . I d. at120- 21; C r adl e, 290 F .3 d a t 5 3 8 -3 9 . R u ss e ll’s re lian c e o n a c laim o f a c tu a l in n o c e n c e o r a n a lleg e d E ig h th A m endmentvi ol at i on t o ci r cumventthe gat ekee pi ng pr ovi s i ons of § 2255 i s unavai l i ng, and am ou nts t o li t t l e m ore than an en d run arou nd the F ou rth C i rcui tC ou rtof A pp eal s’ deci s i on deny i ng hi s appl i cat i on forauthor i zat i on t o fi l e a s econd § 2255 mot i on bas ed on cl ai m s of new l ydi s cover ed evi dence , w hi ch w as fi l ed nea r l ytw o y ear s aft erfi nal r es ol ut i on of the FO I A l i t i gat i on thatuncover ed s uch evi dence . W e a g re e w ith a p p e llee ’s c o n ten tio n th a t R u ss e ll’s E ig h th A m e n d m e n t cla im is5

m e re ly a r e s ta te m e n t o f th e s u b s ta n c e o f

h is § 2 2 5 5 c la im s u n d e r a d if f e re n t h e a d in g . B eca us e R us s el l had a r eas onabl e opportuni tyt o r ai s e hi s cl ai m s , i ncl udi ng hi s “ac tual in n o c e n c e ” c laim , in a § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n b e f o re th e D istric t C o u rt a n d th e F o u rth C irc u it C our tof A ppeal s , and bec aus e hi s cl ai m s ar e notbas ed on an i nt erveni ng i nt erpr et at i on of the s t atut orypr ovi s i ons underw hi ch he w as convi ct ed, he maynotnow s eek r el i ef thr ough the fi l i ng of a § 2241 pe t i t i on. A s foranycl ai m s of new l ydi s cover ed evi dence w h ich h a v e su rf

a c e d sin c e th e d e n ial o f R u ss e ll’s la st a p p lica tio n f o r a u th o riz a tio n to f

ile a se c o n d o r su c c e ss iv e m o tio n , the ysh o u ld , o f c o u rse , b e p re se n ted to th e F o u rth C irc u it C our tof A ppeal s i n a new appl i cat i on, t ogetherw i th hi s ar gum ent s thathe has exer ci s ed d u e d i l i g e n c e i n b r i n g i n g th e m. F in a lly , R u ss e ll’s re lian c e o n S o u ter v . Jo n e s, 3 9 5 F .3 d 5 7 7 (6 C ir. 2 0 0 5 ), is th m i s pl ace d. A s not ed byappel l ee, the C our tof A ppeal s i n Sout eraddr es s ed the i s s ue of w hetherA E D PA ’ s one y earl i m i t at i ons per i od forthe fi l i ng of an i ni t i al pet i t i on under28 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 b ya sta te p riso n e r m a yb e to lled b yth e d e m o n stra tio n o f a c re d ib le c laim o f “ a c tu a l in n o c e n c e .” It d id n o t, ho w e v e r, co n sid e r th e iss u e p re se n ted in th is a p p e a l, i . e. , w hether§ 2255 i s r ender ed an i nadequa t e r emedys uch thata pet i t i on under§ 2241 m a yb e u se d a s a v e h icle to p re se n t R u ss e ll’s c laim s w h e re h e h a d a p re v io u s o p p o rtu n ity t o r ai s e thos e cl ai m s . M or eover , the Sout ercourtr ecogni zed thatC ongr es s pr ovi ded for a n a c tu a l in n o c e n c e e x c e p tio n in A E D P A ’s s u c c e s s iv e p e titio n p ro v is io n s , a lb e it perhaps a more s tr i ngentone, thatw oul d al l ow a movanti n R us s el l ’ s pos i t i on t o pr ocee d w i th a6

s ucce s s i ve pet i t i on or§ 2255 m ot i on upon a s uffi ci ents how i ng. I d. at599, ci t i ng 28 U . S . C . § § 2 2 4 4 (b)(2 )(B ) (also ref ere n ce d in § 2 2 5 5 ). T h e D istri ct C o u rt , thu s, d id n o t err in d ism iss in g R u ss e ll’s p e tit io n , n o r d id it ab u se its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g h is p o stju d g m e n t m o tio n s to re c o n sid e r a n d v a c a te th a t o rd e r o f d ism iss a l. Forthe above r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or der s di s m i s s i ng R u s s e ll’ s § 2 2 4 1 p e titio n a n d d e n y in g h is m o tio n s f ile d p u rs u a n t to R u le s 5 9 (e ) a n d 6 0 (b ). T he part i es ’ m ot i ons fors um m aryact i on ar e ther efor e deni ed as m oot . W e w i l l al s o deny R u ss e ll’s m o tio n se e k in g a re tu rn o f th e f e e s c h a rg e d f

o r d o c k e tin g a n d f

ili n g h is “amended” not i ce of

appea l atC . A . N o. 04- 2034. R us s el l ’ s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on w as not fi l ed w i thi n t en day s of the entr yof the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s fi nal or der . T hus , i tw as notone o f th e m o tio n s s e t f

o rth in R u le 4 (a )(4 )(A )(v i) o f th e F e d e ra l R u les o f

A p p e llate Pr ocedur e forw hi ch R ul e 4( a) ( 4) ( B ) ( i i ) perm i t s the fi l i ng of an a m ended not i ce, and for w hi ch R ul e 4( a) ( 4) ( B ) ( i i i ) s t at es no addi t i onal fee i s r equi r ed. A s w e have s t at ed i n no uncert ai n t erm s , an appe al fr om an or derdeny i ng a mot i on forr el i ef f r om a j udgm ent underR ul e 60 br i ngs up onl ythe corr ectnes s of the or derdeny i ng thatm ot i on, notthe under l y i ng or der . T orr es v. C hat er , 125 F. 3d 166, 168 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . T hus , R us s el l w as obl i gat ed t o fi l e s epar at e not i ces i n or dert o appea l both the under l y i ng or derof di s m i s s al a n d th e D i s tr i c tC o u r t ’ s s u b s e q u e n to r d e rd e n yi n g h i s R u l e 6 0 ( b ) m o t i o n . A c c o r d i n g l y, no r eturn of the fi l i ng and docke t i ng fee s i s w arr ant ed. R us s el l ’ s m ot i ons forthe ap p o intm en t of

co u n sel an d to se al do cu m en ts an d /or ex p an d the re co rd o n ap p ea l are l i kew i s e deni ed.