2009 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 12-29-2009 

# Ron ald S nee, Jr

. v . Mich a el B arone 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 . 09-3618

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_2009

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 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i 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 " Ron ald S ne e, Jr

. v . Mich a el B ar one " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 26. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/261

A L D - 058 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. 09- 3618

___________ R O N A L D C L IF F O R D S N E E , J R ., A ppel l ant

v. M I CH AE L BA RO NE

____________________________________ 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 A ct i on N o. 1: 09- cv- 00147 D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le T erren ce F . M cV erry

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on Pur s uantt o T h ir d C ir c u it L .A .R . 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

N ovember25, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A M B R O and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: D ece m ber29, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM A ppel l antR onal d C l i ffor d Snee, J r . , appea l s an or derent er ed on A ugus t27, 2009, b yth e U n ited S tate s D istric t 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 e n y in g h isT her e i s a di s put e overw hetherSnee fi l ed hi s habea s corpus pet i t i on pur s uantt o 28 1 U . S. C . § 2254 or28 U . S. C . § 2241. 2 m o tio n f o r a p re lim in a ryin

ju n c tio n . W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e a p p e a l d o e s n o t p re se n t a su b stan ti al qu esti o n an d w il l sum m aril yaf firm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er. Se e 3 d C ir . L . A . R . 27. 4; I . O . P. 10. 6. I. B eca us e w e w r i t e s ol el yforthe bene fi tof the part i es , w e w i l l l i m i tourdi s cus s i on to th o s e f

a c ts re le v a n t to o u r d e c is io n . S n e e is a p riso n e r c o n f

in e d a t th e S tate C o rre c tio n a l In stitu tio n a t F o re st, Penns y l vani a. I n J une 2009, Snee fi l ed a pe t i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, chal l engi ng the l egal i tyof hi s cus t ody . A m ong ot herthi ngs , Snee cl ai m s t o be i n pos s es s i on of a 1 cert i fi ed or derdi r ect i ng hi s i m m edi at e r el eas e fr om pr i s on. D ur i ng t he pr ocee di ngs , Snee moved t he D i s t r i ctC our tfora t empora r yr es t r ai ni ng or der( “TR O ”) orpr el i m i naryi nj unct i on, cl ai m i ng thatthe Penns y l vani a D epart m entof C orr ect i ons ( “D O C ”) w r ongful l yconfi s cat ed ce r t ai n l egal document s fr om hi s cel l . Snee ar gued thathe coul d notpr ocee d w i t h hi s habea s corpus pet i t i on w i t houtthe conf i s cat ed m aterial s an d thu s fa ce d irrep ara b le ha rm . H e a lso a rgu ed that the p u b li c intere st fav o rs a c c e ss to th e c o u rts a n d th a t h e u lti m a telyh a s a stro n g lik e lih o o d o f su c c e ss o n th e m e rits of hi s habea s corpus pet i t i on.D O C p o licya lso se ts f o rth g rie v a n c e p ro c e d u re s th ro u g h w h ich th e p riso n e r is 2 perm i t t ed t o oppos e the conf i s cat i on and expl ai n anyl egi t i m at e bas i s forpos s es s i ng U C C - r el at ed mat er i al s . See D C - A D M 803. A l though t he docke tentr ydoes nots etfor t h t he M agi s t r at e J udge’ s di s pos i t i on of 3 Snee’ s T R O /pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on m ot i on, s ee D ocketentr yforJ ul y30, 2009, i ti s cl ear thatthe M agi s t r at e J udge deni ed the mot i on atthatt i m e. See, e. g. , D ocketN o. 16 at11- 1 2 (he aring tr an script). 3 B e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt h a d re f e rre d th e h a b e a s c o rp u s p e tit io n to a M a g istra te J u d g e f o rp r e t r i a l p r o c e e d i n g s i n a c c o r d a n c e wi t h th e M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e s Ac t , 2 8 U. S . C. § 636( b) ( 1) , t he M agi s t r at e J udge hel d a t el ephone he ar i ng conce r ni ng, among ot her thi ngs , Snee’ s m ot i on fora TR O orpr el i m i naryi nj unct i on. D ur i ng the hea r i ng, the C om m onw eal t h ar gued thatt he mat er i al s w er e r el at ed t o t he U ni form C om m er ci al C ode ( “U C C ”) and thatpr i s on offi ci al s confi s cat ed them purs uantt o w r i t t en D O C pol i cy p roh ibit ing inm ate p o sses sion o f U C C -relat ed m aterial s. S ee D C -A D M 8 0 3 , 8 1 5 . In 2 r es pons e, Snee di d notdi s put e the D O C ’ s cl as s i fi cat i on of the mat er i al s as U C C - r el at ed co n tr ab an d . Instea d , h e a rgu ed that D O C p o li cyca n n ev er su p erse d e a n ind ividu al’s c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t o f

a c c e s s to th e c o u rt s y s te m . T he M agi s t r at e J udge conc l uded thatSnee had be en abl e t o adequa t el yacc es s t he cour t s i n the abs ence of the conf i s cat ed mat er i al . She obs erved thatSnee had a l r eady fi l ed hi s habea s corpus pet i t i on and thatno fur t herbr i efi ng w as nece s s ary . T he M a g istra te J u d g e d e ter m in e d th a t sh e w o u ld n o t in ter f e re w ith th e p riso n ’s s e c u rity deci s i on conce r ni ng t he di s put ed mat er i al s . She t her efor e deni ed Snee’ s m ot i on. 3 S n e e a p p e a l e d t h e M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e ’ s d e c i s i o n t o th e Di s t r i c tCo u r t . S e e 2 8 U. S . C.A n i m m edi at e appe al m aynotnor m al l ybe t aken f r om an or dergr ant i ng ordeny i ng a 4 t empora ryr es t r ai ni ng or der . See N utr as w eetC o. v. V i t - M arE nt erpr i s es , I nc. , 112 F. 3d 689, 692 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . A tt i m es , i ti s di ffi cul tt o di s t i ngui s h w hi ch form of r el i ef ha s b ee n inv o k ed . S ee id. H o w ev er, t em p o raryrestrai n ing o rde rs are o f e x tr em elysh o rt du r a t i on a nd t ypi c a l l yi s s ue w i t ho utno t i c e t o the op po s i ng pa r t y . Se e Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 4 § 6 3 6 (b)(1 )(A ). T h e C o m m o n w ea lth resp o n d ed b yarg u ing , as ith ad in the h ea ri n g b ef o re the M agi s tr at e J udge, t hatt he mat er i al s w er e pr oper l yconfi s cat ed as contr aband pur s uant t o w r i t t en D O C pol i cypr ohi bi t i ng U C C - r el at ed mat er i al . I n par t i cul ar , the C o m m o n w e a l t h a r g u e d t h a tt h e m a t e r i a l s r e l a t e t o th e s o - c a l l e d “ R e d e m p t i o n ” th e o r y, thr ough w hi ch s om e pr i s oner s at t empt t o obt ai n fr audul entU C C l i ens agai ns tpr i s on offi ci al s i n or dert o ext or tt hei rr el eas e fr om pr i s on. See M onr oe v. B ear d, 536 F. 3d 198, 203 n. 4 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( des cr i bi ng the “Redem pt i on” theory ) . O n A ugus t27, 2009, the D i s tr i ctC our ti s s ued an or derconcl udi ng thatthe M agi s t r at e J udge’ s rul i ng w as not c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s o r c o n tr a ry to la w . A c c o rd in g ly, th e D is tr ic t C o u rt d e n ie d re lie f. S n e e f i l e d a t i me l yp r o s e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l f r o m th e Di s t r i c tCo u r t ’ s o r d e r . On Sept ember18, 2009, t he C l erk i nform ed the part i es thatthi s m att erw oul d be cons i der ed forpos s i bl e s um m aryact i on pur s uantt o 3d C i r . L . A . R . 27. 4 and I . O . P. 10. 6 and i nvi t ed the p arti es to su b m itw ri tt en arg u m en t. S n ee fil ed a re sp o n se th at op p o ses s u m m ary act i on and al s o m oves t hi s C our tt o i s s ue a TR O ori nj unct i ve r el i ef. II. W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r t ’ s o r d e rp u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1292( a) ( 1) . W e “r evi ew t he deni al of a pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on foran abus e of

465( b) . I n thi s cas e, al t hough Snee purpor t ed t o r eques tboth form s of r el i ef, he r ai s ed the

i s s ue byform al m ot i on w i t h not i ce t o t he C om m onw eal t h. A ccor di ngl y , w e vi ew the m o tio n a s re q u e s tin g a p re lim in a ry in ju n c tio n . 5 di s cr et i on, an err orof l aw , ora cl earm i s t ake i n t he cons i der at i on of pr oof. ” K os Phar m s . , I nc. v. A ndr x C orp. , 369 F. 3d 700, 708 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . T he s cope of ourr evi ew i s l i m i t ed and the bur den on the part ys eeki ng r ever s al i s hi gh. Punnet tv. C art er , 621 F. 2d 578, 582 ( 3d C i r . 1980) . W e mays um m ar i l yaff i r m i f thi s appea l pr es ent s no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on. See 3d C i r . L . A . R . 27. 4; I . O . P. 10. 6. A p reli m inaryinjun cti o n is an “e x tr ao rdin aryrem ed y . ” K o s, 3 6 9 F . 3 d at 70 8 . In o rd e r to o b tain a p re lim in a ryin ju n c tio n , S n e e w a s re q u ire d to e sta b lish f o u r e lem e n ts: a l i kel i hood of s ucce s s on t he mer i t s , i r r epar abl e i nj ury , a fa vor abl e bal ance of the har ds hi ps , and cons i s t encyw i t h t he publ i c i nt er es t . H oxw or t h v. B l i nder , R obi ns on & C o. , 90 3 F . 2d 18 6, 19 7-98 (3d C i r. 19 90 ). F ai l ure t o est abli sh anyel em ent r end ers a p re lim in a ryin

ju n c tio n in a p p ro p ria te. N u tra sw e e t, 17 6 F .3 d a t 1 5 3 . In th is c a se , S n e e d id n o t e s ta b lis h th e n e c e s s a ry e le m e n ts f o r i s s u a n c e o f

a p re lim in a ry in

ju n c tio n . A c c o rd in g ly , h e h a s f

a iled to e sta b lish th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in deny i ng hi s m ot i on. Snee pr i m ar i l yar gues t hatt he D O C ’ s confi s cat i on of hi s U C C - r el at ed l egal m a te ri a ls v io la te d h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t o f u n im p e d e d a c c e s s to th e c o u rt s y s te m . C ontr aryt o Snee’ s pos i t i on, w e have hel d t hatpr i s oner s do nothave a n unr es t r i ct ed cons t i tut i onal r i ghtof ac ces s t o l egal m at er i al s . See M onr oe v. B ear d, 536 F. 3d 198, 207-S n e e h a s n o td i s p u t e d t h e DOC’ s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f

th e c o n f i s c a t e d ma t e r i a l s a s UCC- 5 r e l a t e d c o n t r a b a n d , a l t h o u g h h e a r g u e s th a tth e ma t e r i a l s d o n o tp e r t a i n t o f r a u d u l e n tUCC l i ens . Snee s t at es t hat“[t ] he us e of the U C C i n t he document s w as s chol ar l yl egal anal y s i s of the I nhabi t ant ’ s fundament al r i ght s chal l engi ng hi s fr audul entconvi ct i on. ” W e not e thatt he r ecor d does notr efl ectw hetherSnee exha us t ed hi s admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es bychal l engi ng t he conf i s cat i on of the U C C - r el at ed mat er i al s thr ough t he p ri s o n ’s g ri e v a n c e p ro c e s s . 6 10 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . I n M onr oe, w e conc l uded thata D O C pol i cyperm i t t i ng confi s cat i on o f p riso n e rs’ U C C -re late d m a ter ials w a s n o t co n stitu tio n a llyu n re a so n a b le, p a rticu lar lyin l i ghtof “the D O C ’ s i nt er es ti n pr ot ect i ng governm entoffi ci al s fr om fr audul entl i ens . ” M o n ro e , 5 3 6 F .3 d a t 2 0 8 . S n e e h a s o f f e re d n o th in g to c o n v in c e u s th a t o u r h o ld in g in M onr oe s houl d notappl yt o hi s cl ai m . H e ther efor e has notes t abl i s hed a l i kel i hood of su cc ess o n the m erit s. H e a lso h as n o t est ab li sh ed that h e su ff ere d an irrep ara b le i n

jury 5 due t o the pr i s on’ s al l eged i nfr i ngementof hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . See i d. at208- 09. W e al s o concl ude thatSnee has notes t abl i s hed thatthe publ i c i nt er es torthe bal ance of the har ds hi ps w ei gh i n hi s favor . W hi l e Snee ha s ar gued on appe al thathe r equi r es t he conf

i s cat ed document s i n or dert o pr es enthi s habea s corpus pet i t i on, w e s ee no err ori n t he M agi s t r at e J udge’ s concl us i on, aff i r m ed bythe D i s t r i ctC our t , thatSnee has al r eadyadequa t el yacc es s ed the courts y s t em and has pr es ent ed hi s habea s corpus pet i t i on. See C hr i s t opherv. H arbur y , 536 U . S. 403, 415 ( 2002) ( t o es t abl i s h an un con st i tuti on al den i al of ac cess t o the cou rt s, a pri soner m ustshow , i nteral i a, a l ost oppor tuni tyt o pur s ue a nonf r i vol ous cl ai m ) . O urr evi ew of the r ecor d r efl ect s that , thus far , Snee has been a bl e t o adequa t el yar t i cul at e hi s habea s corpus cl ai m s i n t he abs ence ofth e c o n f

isc a ted d o c u m e n ts. In a d d iti o n , S n e e o f f e rs n o th in g to e sta b lish th a t h is c laim to the U C C - r el at ed mat er i al s out w ei ghs the D O C ’ s l egi t i m at e s ecur i t yi nt er es ti n pr ot ect i ng i t s offi ci al s fr om fr audul entU C C l i ens . See M onr oe, 536 F. 3d at208. Fi nal l y , Snee ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tact ed arbi t r ar i l ybyfai l i ng t o rul e upon hi s pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on m ot i on i n an expe di t i ous m anner . T he r ecor d r efl ect s thatSnee fi r s ts oughta pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on i n J une 2009, the M agi s t r at e J udge hel d a hea r i ng and i s s ued a rul i ng i n J ul y2009, and the D i s t r i ctC our tdi s pos ed of Snee ’ s appea l fr om the M agi s tr at e J udge’ s deci s i on i n A ugus t2009. W e conc l ude thatSnee’ s cl ai m of un reas on able del ayl acks an yfactual basi s. III . W e fi nd no abus e of di s cr et i on i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on nott o i s s ue a pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on. A ccor di ngl y , beca us e thi s appea l does notpr es enta s ubs t ant i al ques t i on, w e w i l l aff

i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der . Snee’ s m ot i on fora TR O or pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on i s deni ed.

7