Court Opinion

ID: 9375784
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-28 21:00:29.614456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:01.801495
License: Public Domain

DLD-084                                                          NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                      No. 22-1860
                                      ___________

                                    RICKY MILLER,
                                                 Appellant

                                             v.

    MONROE COUNTY; KEN MORRIS, Sheriff; GEORGE LITTLES, Secretary of
           PADOC; ROBERT CHETIRKIN, Administrator of EJSP
               ____________________________________

                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                               for the District of New Jersey
                         (D.C. Civil Action No. 2-22-cv-00759)
                      District Judge: Honorable Susan D. Wigenton
                      ____________________________________

            Submitted for Possible Dismissal Due to a Jurisdictional Defect,
             Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), or
          Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
                                   February 2, 2023
            Before: JORDAN, SHWARTZ, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

                            (Opinion filed: February 28, 2023)
                                        _________

                                        OPINION *
                                        _________
PER CURIAM

       Pro se appellant, Ricky Miller, is a Pennsylvania prisoner who was previously

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
incarcerated in New Jersey. In February 2022, he filed a civil rights complaint in the

District Court claiming that his due process rights were violated when Pennsylvania took

custody of him pursuant to a detainer. According to Miller, Pennsylvania was not

permitted to take him into custody because he had not yet served the supervised release

portion of his New Jersey sentence. By way of relief, Miller sought a preliminary

injunction directing the defendants to return him to New Jersey custody; a judgment

declaring that his constitutional rights had been violated; and money damages. The

District Court screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and dismissed it

without prejudice for failure to state a claim. Miller appealed.

       We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Borelli v. City of Reading, 532

F.2d 950, 951–52 (3d Cir. 1976) (per curiam) (explaining that an order that dismisses a

complaint without prejudice is final and appealable if the plaintiff declares his intention

to stand on his complaint). We review the District Court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) de novo. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000).

       Upon review, we agree with the District Court that Miller failed to state a due

process claim. Contrary to Miller’s contention, a prisoner does not have a constitutional

right to be released upon expiration of a custodial sentence in one jurisdiction if he is

subject to a detainer in another jurisdiction. Cf. Lindsay v. United States, 453 F.2d 867,

868 (3d Cir. 1972) (“The exercise of jurisdiction over a prisoner who has violated the law

of more than one sovereignty and the priority of prosecution of the prisoner is solely a

question of comity between the sovereignties which is not subject to attack by the

prisoner.” (quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, Miller did not identify any
                                              2
Pennsylvania or New Jersey law that would preclude him from vindicating his federal

rights, nor did he allege that the Pennsylvania or New Jersey courts did not afford him the

full protections of the law. See Alvin v. Suzuki, 227 F.3d 107, 116 (3d Cir. 2000).

Finally, as the District Court noted, to the extent that Miller sought release from

Pennsylvania custody, the proper vehicle to do so was via a petition for writ of habeas

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

       Accordingly, we will summarily affirm.

                                              3