John McCarthy v. Warden Lewisburg

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
Nos. 11-1243 & 11-1404
___________
JOHN J. MCCARTHY,
Appellant
v.
WARDEN USP LEWISBURG
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-01673)
District Judge: Honorable William W. Caldwell
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 14, 2011
Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR., and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: October 18, 2011)
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
Federal prisoner John J. McCarthy, proceeding pro se, has brought two appeals
before this Court. The first challenges a Magistrate Judge’s report recommending that
McCarthy’s habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be dismissed; the second
1
challenges the District Court’s order adopting that recommendation. For the reasons that
follow, we lack appellate jurisdiction over the former appeal, and will affirm the District
Court’s order at issue in the latter appeal.
I.
In January 1994, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
(“the District of Connecticut”) sentenced McCarthy to 235 months’ imprisonment
following his conviction for two counts of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person.
At sentencing, McCarthy’s trial counsel informed the court that McCarthy would soon be
sentenced on state criminal charges that had been pending in Connecticut since 1992, and
that his sentence for those charges would likely run concurrently with his federal
sentence. Nonetheless, the District of Connecticut did not specify whether McCarthy’s
federal sentence would run concurrently with, or consecutively to, that future state
sentence. In April 1994, McCarthy was sentenced in Connecticut state court to seven
years’ imprisonment, to run concurrently with his federal sentence. Thereafter, he
remained in state custody to serve that state sentence.1
In August 1995, McCarthy requested the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to designate,
nunc pro tunc, the state facility at which he was incarcerated a federal prison, which
would allow him to serve his state and federal sentences concurrently. The BOP denied
that request, suggesting that it lacked independent authority (i.e., separate from the
1
McCarthy’s appearances in federal court had been made pursuant to a writ of habeas
corpus ad prosequendum, as it appears that he had been in state custody since his arrest
2
sentencing judge) to make such a designation. In June 1998, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, reviewing the District of Connecticut’s denial of
McCarthy’s petition challenging the BOP’s decision, held that the BOP did indeed have
authority to grant McCarthy’s request for nunc pro tunc designation. See McCarthy v.
Doe, 146 F.3d 118, 123 (2d Cir. 1998). Accordingly, the Second Circuit remanded the
matter to the District of Connecticut with instructions to remand to the BOP for
consideration of the merits of McCarthy’s request. See id. On remand, the BOP denied
McCarthy’s request, highlighting his “extensive” criminal record and the federal
sentencing judge’s silence as to whether his federal and state sentences would run
concurrently.
McCarthy was released from state custody on February 5, 1999, and his federal
sentence commenced at that time. In 2004, while incarcerated at the United States
Penitentiary (“USP”) in Leavenworth, Kansas, he filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas (“the District
of Kansas”), claiming that the BOP was required to credit his federal sentence for the
time he had spent in state custody. The District of Kansas dismissed the petition, and the
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed on appeal, concluding that,
“in light of Mr. McCarthy’s criminal history and prior convictions, the [BOP] did not
abuse its discretion when it declined to designate a state institution for the service of his
on state charges in 1992.
3
federal sentence.” See McCarthy v. Warden, USP Leavenworth, 168 F. App’x 276, 277
(10th Cir. 2006).
In 2007, at which time McCarthy was incarcerated at USP Lewisburg in
Pennsylvania, he filed a § 2241 petition in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania (“the District Court”). Attached to his petition were: (1) a
recent request he had made to the BOP to credit his federal sentence for the time he had
spent in state custody; and (2) a response from a BOP supervisory inmate systems
specialist, stating that this request would be forwarded to the BOP’s Designation and
Sentence Computation Center for review. In August 2007, the District Court dismissed
the petition as unexhausted. In doing so, the court noted that “any subsequent § 2241
petition claiming that the BOP abused its discretion by denying McCarthy’s request for
nunc pro tunc designation may be subject to consideration for abuse of the writ of habeas
corpus.” McCarthy v. Warden USP Lewisburg, No. 1:07-cv-1052, 2007 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 62882, at *4-5 n.1 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 27, 2007). McCarthy did not appeal from that
judgment.
In May 2008, McCarthy, then incarcerated at USP Florence in Colorado, filed yet
another § 2241 petition, this time in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado (“the District of Colorado”). In September 2008, the court dismissed the
petition as successive. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded, concluding
that
4
[i]n light of the unsettled question of whether appellate court
preauthorization is required before a prisoner may file a
successive writ under § 2241 or whether district courts may
continue to address this issue as they did pre-AEDPA, it
seems problematic for the district court to dismiss
[McCarthy’s] writ sua sponte based on the pre-AEDPA
version of § 2244(a).
McCarthy v. Warden USP Florence, 338 F. App’x 739, 742 (10th Cir. 2009).
On remand, the District of Colorado denied McCarthy’s habeas petition on the
merits, concluding that the BOP had not abused its discretion in refusing to grant nunc
pro tunc designation. In November 2010, the Tenth Circuit, noting that it “ha[d] already
once affirmed the BOP’s denial of a request Mr. McCarthy previously made for such a
designation,” upheld the District of Colorado’s judgment. See McCarthy v. Warden,
USP Florence, 403 F. App’x 319, 320-21 (10th Cir. 2010).
Meanwhile, in August 2010, McCarthy, who had been transferred back to USP
Lewisburg, filed the instant § 2241 petition in the District Court, claiming that the BOP
had “unlawfully transformed his concurrent state term . . . in to [sic] a consecutive state
term.” After the BOP had filed a response, McCarthy filed a traverse, clarifying that he
was challenging the BOP’s failure to treat his state and federal sentences as concurrent by
designating, nunc pro tunc, a state facility as a federal prison. In light of this
clarification, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued an order directing the BOP
to file a supplemental response addressing whether this latest habeas petition was barred
by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a). That order permitted McCarthy to file a supplemental reply.
5
In its supplemental response, the BOP argued that McCarthy’s petition was indeed
barred by § 2244(a). McCarthy, meanwhile, contended that the BOP had waived that
argument by not including it in its original response, and that the Magistrate Judge could
not raise the issue sua sponte. He also claimed that his petition was not barred because he
was challenging a “new decision” from the BOP.
On December 8, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending that the
District Court dismiss McCarthy’s habeas petition, concluding that the petition was an
abuse of the writ and thus barred by § 2244(a). McCarthy subsequently filed a notice of
appeal challenging that recommendation. That appeal was docketed at C.A. No. 11-
1243, and was listed by the Clerk of this Court for possible dismissal due to a
jurisdictional defect. Meanwhile, on February 7, 2011, the District Court adopted the
Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and dismissed the petition. McCarthy then filed a
second notice of appeal, this time challenging the District Court’s order. This latter
appeal was docketed at C.A. No. 11-1404, and the two appeals have since been
consolidated.
II.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we have jurisdiction over appeals from “final
decisions” of the district courts. Because the Magistrate Judge’s report is merely a
recommendation, not a final decision under § 1291, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal
at C.A. No. 11-1234. See Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Dominick D’Andrea, Inc., 150 F.3d 245,
250 (3d Cir. 1998); Siers v. Morrash, 700 F.2d 113, 115 (3d Cir. 1983). Conversely,
6
because the District Court’s February 7, 2011 order is a final decision under § 1291, we
have jurisdiction over the appeal at C.A. No. 11-1404. In reviewing that order, “[w]e
exercise plenary review over the District Court’s legal conclusions and apply a clearly
erroneous standard to its findings of fact.” See O’Donald v. Johns, 402 F.3d 172, 173 n.1
(3d Cir. 2005) (per curiam).
Having considered the parties’ arguments, and for the reasons set forth in the
Magistrate Judge’s cogent report, which was adopted by the District Court, we agree with
the court’s dismissal of McCarthy’s latest habeas petition as an abuse of the writ.
Although it does not affect our decision here, we write further to address a recent
development highlighted by McCarthy in his briefing. Attached to his “Addendum
Brief” is a letter addressed to him, dated June 29, 2011, from the Honorable Peter C.
Dorsey of the District of Connecticut.2 The letter states as follows:
I have received your letter dated May 14, 2011, in which you
request that I make your federal sentence run concurrently
with your state sentence. I have written a letter to the Warden
of USP Lewisburg recommending that your federal sentence
run concurrently with your state sentence and that both
sentences be served in one penal institution.
(Attach. to Addendum Br.) The BOP did not address this letter in its response brief;
however, we trust that, if this letter is indeed from Judge Dorsey, the BOP, to the extent it
2
Although Judge Dorsey was not McCarthy’s sentencing judge, McCarthy’s criminal
case was reassigned to Judge Dorsey in or about January 2000 (at which time McCarthy
was pursuing collateral relief).
7
has not already done so, will give his recommendation due consideration and render a
decision promptly.
In light of the above, we will dismiss the appeal at C.A. No. 11-1243 for lack of
appellate jurisdiction, and will affirm the District Court’s order at issue in C.A. No. 11-
1404. McCarthy’s request for appointment of counsel is denied.
8