Case: 19-12452 Date Filed: 05/13/2020 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-12452
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:16-cr-00502-JSM-AEP-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PRISCILLA ANN ELLIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(May 13, 2020)
Before JORDAN, TJOFLAT and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Priscilla Ann Ellis appeals from the district court’s May 31, 2019 order
denying two post-judgment motions filed in one of her two criminal cases. On
appeal, the government has moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, for
Case: 19-12452 Date Filed: 05/13/2020 Page: 2 of 5
summary affirmance, and to stay the briefing schedule pending resolution of its
motion.
I.
The government’s motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction is
GRANTED to the extent that the arguments Ellis has raised in her initial brief that
attack her underlying convictions or sentences are outside the scope of this appeal.
See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B) (requiring that a notice of appeal “designate the
judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed”); White v. State Farm Fire and Cas.
Co,
664 F.3d 860, 863-64 (11th Cir. 2011) (noting that, while we have discretion to
disregard irregularities in the form of a notice of appeal, an express designation of
the order appealed from implies the lack of intent to appeal unmentioned orders and
issues that were unrelated to the orders designated in the notice of appeal). We also
note that Ellis has already filed appeals from her criminal judgments. See United
States v. Arlt,
567 F.2d 1295, 1296-97 (5th Cir. 1978) (concluding that appellant was
not entitled to two appeals from his conviction).
II.
Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of the essence, such
as “situations where important public policy issues are involved or those where
rights delayed are rights denied,” or where “the position of one of the parties is
clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the
2
Case: 19-12452 Date Filed: 05/13/2020 Page: 3 of 5
outcome of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the appeal is
frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,
406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). 1
We review questions of the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction de novo.
United States v. Al-Arian,
514 F.3d 1184, 1189 (11th Cir. 2008). Likewise, we
review claims of double jeopardy de novo. United States v. Bobb,
577 F.3d 1366,
1371 (11th Cir. 2009). “We may affirm for any reason supported by the record, even
if not relied upon by the district court.” Al-Arian,
514 F.3d at 1189 (quotation marks
omitted). “Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings
drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v.
United States,
148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). Nonetheless, issues not briefed
on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned. Timson v. Sampson,
518 F.3d
870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008).
Challenges to the execution of a sentence, rather than to its validity, are
properly brought under
28 U.S.C. § 2241. Antonelli v. Warden, U.S.P. Atlanta,
542
F.3d 1348, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008). Section 2241 petitions must be brought in the
district court of the district where the prisoner is incarcerated, and any other district
court lacks jurisdiction over the petition. Fernandez v. United States,
941 F.2d 1488,
1495 (11th Cir. 1991). And while prisoners may also bring civil actions alleging
1
We are bound by cases decided by the former Fifth Circuit before October 1, 1981.
Bonner v. City of Pritchard,
661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
3
Case: 19-12452 Date Filed: 05/13/2020 Page: 4 of 5
constitutional violations in the course of confinement by specific federal actors
under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S.
388 (1971), federal actors enjoy qualified immunity for acts done in the actor’s
official capacity. Corr. Serv. Corp. v. Malesko,
534 U.S. 61, 72 (2001). Moreover,
“[a] judge enjoys absolute immunity from suit for judicial acts performed within the
jurisdiction of his court.” McCollough v. Finley,
907 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir.
2018).
The Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) is authorized to designate a prisoner’s place
of imprisonment subject to, inter alia, a prisoner’s security designation,
recommendations of the sentencing court, and any other security concerns of the
BOP.
18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). “Any order, recommendation, or request by a
sentencing court that a convicted person serve a term of imprisonment in a
community corrections facility shall have no binding effect on the authority of the
[BOP] under this section to determine or change the place of imprisonment of that
person.”
Id. A defendant’s valid conviction authorizes the government to “confine
[her] and subject [her] to the rules of its prison system so long as the conditions of
confinement do not otherwise violate the Constitution.” Meachum v. Fano,
427 U.S.
215, 224 (1976). “That life in one prison is much more disagreeable than in another
does not in itself signify that a [Due Process] liberty interest is implicated when a
prisoner is transferred to the institution with more severe rules.”
Id. at 225.
4
Case: 19-12452 Date Filed: 05/13/2020 Page: 5 of 5
We GRANT the government’s motion for summary affirmance as to Ellis’s
remaining challenges regarding her confinement. Although Ellis properly appealed
from the district court’s order denying her motion for law library access, she has
abandoned any challenge to the denial of that motion by failing to raise any argument
about it on appeal. See Timson,
518 F.3d at 874. Had Ellis’s challenges to the
imposition of Special Administrative Measures (“SAMs”) and her designation to a
high-security facility been brought under
28 U.S.C. § 2241, the district court lacked
jurisdiction over them and, had she brought them under Bivens, the district judge
was entitled to absolute immunity. See McCollough, 907 F.3d at 1330; Fernandez,
941 F.2d at 1495. And to the extent Ellis is challenging the BOP’s implementation
of extra security measures, that decision is completely within the BOP’s discretion.
See
18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). Although the district court summarily denied Ellis’s
motions, we may affirm on any ground supported by the record. See Al-Arian,
514
F.3d at 1189.
Thus, there is no substantial question as to the outcome of the case, and the
government’s position is correct as a matter of law. See Groendyke Transp., Inc.,
406 F.2d at 1162. Accordingly, the government’s motion for summary affirmance
is GRANTED as to Ellis’s challenges regarding her confinement, and its motion to
stay the briefing schedule is DENIED as moot.
5
