Lamar Caldwell v. J.T. Shartle , 461 F. App'x 98 ( 2012 )

BLD-087 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-4173
___________
LAMAR CALDWELL,
Appellant
v.
J.T. SHARTLE, WARDEN
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil Action No. 11-cv-05153)
District Judge: Honorable Robert B. Kugler
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
January 12, 2012
Before: SCIRICA, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Filed: February 07, 2012)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
PER CURIAM.
Lamar Caldwell appeals pro se from the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey’s order dismissing his habeas petition filed under 28 U.S.C.
1
§ 2241. Because this appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily
affirm the District Court’s order. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6.
I.
Caldwell is a prisoner currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution
in Fairton, New Jersey. In March 1995, he was convicted of possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, and on June 16, 1995, the District Court sentenced him to 250 months’
imprisonment, plus three years of supervised release. Three days later, Caldwell was
sentenced in the Bucks County, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas to seven and a half
to fifteen years of imprisonment, following his guilty plea to four counts of burglary.
The state court sentencing judge recommended that Caldwell’s state sentence run
concurrently with his federal sentence. Caldwell’s appeals as well as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254petition were unsuccessful.
In 2005, Caldwell filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, asserting that the Federal Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”) erred by denying his request for nunc pro tunc designation. That petition was
denied on the merits and this Court dismissed the appeal. See Caldwell v. Miner, Civ. A.
No. 05-cv-04972, 2006 WL 1877131 (D.N.J. 2006). Then, in April 2010, Caldwell filed
a “request to file a nunc pro tunc petition,” which was treated as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241petition, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. His trial counsel and the government
submitted a letter stating that “the Court may recommend to the Bureau of Prisons that a
2
nunc pro tunc designation for concurrent sentences is appropriate.” In July 2010, the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the request and amended the June 1995
judgment to add a recommendation that the BOP designate nunc pro tunc the state prison
as the facility where Caldwell began his federal sentence.
The BOP declined to act on the District Court’s recommendation and Caldwell
asked that the Court impose a concurrent sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a). The BOP
submitted a letter explaining that it reviewed Caldwell’s case for a nunc pro tunc
designation in 2004. Based on input from the District Court at that time, as well as
Caldwell’s criminal history and a letter from the U.S. Attorney’s office, the BOP denied
the designation. It reviewed that decision upon receiving the July 2010 District Court
recommendation but again denied Caldwell’s request. The District Court denied the
motion as well as Caldwell’s motion for reconsideration, which argued that the federal
court was required to give full faith and credit to the state court’s sentence. We
summarily affirmed the District Court’s orders on September 6, 2011. (C.A. No. 11-
2376.)
Three days later, Caldwell filed another § 2241 petition, this time in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The new petition again challenged
the BOP’s denial of Caldwell’s request for nunc pro tunc designation, arguing that the
BOP should be required to follow the Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s
recommendation. Additionally, Caldwell again asserted that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1738, the
federal courts are required to give full faith and credit to state court judgments,
3
apparently referring to the state court’s 1995 recommendation that Caldwell’s state and
federal sentences run concurrently. The District Court dismissed the petition as barred by
the doctrine of res judicata.
Caldwell now appeals.
II.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “We exercise plenary review
over the district court’s legal conclusions and apply a clearly erroneous standard to its
factual findings.” Cradle v. Miner, 290 F.3d 536, 538 (3d Cir. 2002). We may affirm on
any basis supported by the record. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 191 (3d Cir.
2011).
We agree with the District Court’s conclusion that Caldwell’s claims have been
previously litigated. However, rather than affirm the District Court’s dismissal under the
doctrine of res judicata, we affirm because the § 2241 petition is barred under 28 U.S.C. §
2244(a). We have held that § 2244(a) applies with full force to claims brought under §
2241. Queen v. Miner, 530 F.3d 253, 255 (3d Cir. 2008). Caldwell’s current § 2241
petition again challenges the BOP’s nunc pro tunc decisions and sets forth claims
involving the federal courts’ alleged obligation to give “full faith and credit” to the state
court’s sentencing judgment.1 Caldwell has already raised these claims in his previous
1
We note that Caldwell’s submission in support of his appeal only discusses his claim
involving the federal court’s obligation to give full faith and credit to state court
judgments under 28 U.S.C. § 1738. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s April 2011
4
proceedings. It was not necessary for the District Court to consider the claims again. See
Chambers v. United States, 106 F.3d 472, 475 (2d Cir. 1997) (dismissing § 2241 petition
pursuant to § 2244(a) where same claim had been filed in previous § 2241 petition).
For these reasons, we conclude that this appeal presents “no substantial question,”
and will therefore summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment. See 3d Cir. L.A.R.
27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
memorandum order denying Caldwell’s motion for reconsideration noted that Caldwell
had raised this claim.
5