Rev. Timothy L. Lewis v. Attorney General of the United States and Warden, United States Penitentiary at Lewisburg

indispensable fight, ing Gray's element of another that counsel’s ineffective assist- theory. Gray’s prejudice Gray self-defense ance did not cannot stand. Finally, testimony Heath’s would have D. additional, provided an less interested wit The Jones’ Testimony the defense’s to corroborate version ness of Effect Gray. Nealy, attacked that Johnson we testimony Since find Heath’s to be (where testimony of miss F.2d at 1180 standard, sufficient to meet Strickland directly prosecu contradicted ing witnesses portion we need not that reach the dis- supported and defense’s theo tion witness holding trict court’s order that Jones’ testi- case, defendant met burden ry of mony could not serve as the basis for Although Heath, showing prejudice). granting Gray relief to there because Gray’s son, cannot be said to the mother of that this evidence witness would have witness, completely disinterested abe through investiga- been found an effective cf. Petersen, Montgomery day tion. We therefore leave to another (7th Cir.1988)(completely disinterested wit interesting by issues raised district jury could alter view otherwise showing ness analysis required court’s testimony), she potential testified then-unknown unimpeachable offer a but witness continuing had no rela Gray type that and to demonstrate she of information along. tionship get investiga- and in did not This from more fact available effective testimony tion. is confirmed Witherel’s were on

Gray that he Heath not said III. government good terms. as no Inasmuch to the facts that witness testified were Conclusion knowledge, exclusively Heath’s we within reasons, foregoing For order engage weighing Heath’s credi need not denying Gray’s the district court motion against government bility witnesses. reversed, U.S.C. will Cf id. . and this case will be remanded with di- signifi- district court dismissed vacate, grant Gray’s rections motion testimony ground of Heath’s cance set aside or correct the sentence and to that, gun any having actually seen grant Gray a trial. new directly point, Heath could corroborate However, government Gray’s story. not offer witness who saw the

also did fight, gun during the and therefore the discounting district rationale testimony persuasive. is not Heath’s Our record us assessment of the leads to con- LEWIS, Timothy Appellant, Rev. L. reasonably probable clude that have altered jury’s verdict would the UNITED ATTORNEY GENERAL OF presentation testimony. of Heath’s Warden, STATES United States summary, find that the defendant Penitentiary Lewisburg, et al. showing met his burden of a reason- has No. 88-5515. the outcome of his probability able Appeals, United States Court of been different had his trial have Third Circuit. duty investigate in his counsel not failed from Heath in obtainable evidence Argued Feb. significance pro- this evidence Decided June information, background viding corroborat- case, theory ing the defendant’s

casting government doubt on weak case. We conclude the district court’s hold-

OPINION OF THE COURT COWEN, Judge. Circuit appeal presents This questions two novel involving prisoner law this Circuit serving a sentence under the Youth Correc- prisoner tions Act. The was convicted of another youth crime while sen- and, tence because of the court’s that would no benefit from treat- offender, given ment as a he was consecutive sentence as an adult. The first prisoner issue is whether the is entitled to statutory good receive time credits because failure, pursuant to this “no further finding, segregate benefit” him from prisoners, as the Youth Corrections requires. Act The second issue is whether prisoner similarly same entitled to seg- time credits because he was not regated prisoners during from adult certain periods of his incarceration even before he was sentenced as an adult.

The district court held that the any good was not entitled to receive credits. We hold that he is entitled to period starting time credits for the adult, but not for time allegedly violating served under conditions sentencing. to the adult therefore will reverse and remand for dis- position Opinion. in accordance with this

I. 26, 1979, Timothy

On October (“Lewis”) Superior was sentenced Court for the District of Columbia to a year fifteen term for assault intent to Wade, Acting Federal Public James Y. rob, year and to a ten concurrent term for Defender, (ar- and Melinda C. Ghilardi dangerous weapon. assault with a Both Defender, gued), Asst. Federal Public imposed Youth sentences were under the Scranton, Pa., appellant. Act, Corrections 18 U.S.C. 5005-26 §§ West, Atty., James J. U.S. James A. Gib- 1984) (1982) (“YCA”).1 (repealed (argued), Loma N. bons and Graham Asst. While this sentence at the Feder- Scranton, Pa., Atty., appellees. Petersburg, al Institution Correctional HIGGINBOTHAM, Virginia, Before Lewis was convicted of assault STAPLETON, COWEN, striking, beating wounding Circuit within the Judges. special jurisdiction territorial of the United Opinion applies 1. In section II. of this we describe the the statute was in force and thus it major Although features YCA. the YCA this case. repealed, has been Lewis was sentenced when 113(d). adults, violation 18 U.S.C. housed with violation On October the United sentencing. States even before the 1982 App. at Court for the District Eastern District 25.3 six Virginia sentenced Lewis to months February On filed a mo- offense, for to run that consecutive- summary judgment tion for on the trans- already the he ly sentences which with was App. formation issue. at 49-59. Pursuant Moreover, serving. pursuant to v. Ralston request, parties the district court’s the Robinson, 201, 233, U.S. 102 S.Ct. 70 454 filed on briefs the issues raised Scott (1981), 345 discussed section L.Ed.2d infra (10th States, United 778 F.2d 1444 Cir. III.A., sentencing imposed curiam), 1985) (per and Rodg Johnson v. adult, on six-month sentence Lewis ers, (10th Cir.1985), F.2d 756 79 discussed finding specifically after Lewis would 6,May section III. On the court infra being no benefit obtain further from treat- application denied Lewis’ a pending for bail youth ed as a offender under the YCA. petition. on decision the merits of his On App. at 46. 6, June the district court a issued memo- a result of “no further benefit” As opinion denying randum and order Lewis’ made the court in the finding by 1982 sen- petition corpus for his habeas and motion tencing, participation the YCA Lewis’ summary judgment.4 filed a Lewis no- and his treatment

program was terminated appeal 17, tice of on June and he filed proa prisoner began. Since he as an adult then appellate July se brief with this on segregated prison- from adult has 29, 1988, 27. On November counsel was ers, as under YCA.2 mandated appointed represent Lewis. 8, 1988, January pro filed a se On Lewis II. corpus pursuant of petition for writ purpose 2241 in the United The core is to 28 U.S.C. States YCA rehabili- § Dorszynski of Court for Middle District tation. See District United 3042, Pennsylvania. essence 418 94 The of Lewis’ habe- S.Ct. (1974). end, that his To petition was treatment as L.Ed.2d the YCA adult, youthful pursuant no of allows to receive an benefit, during transformed his YCA sen- indeterminate which time further required undergo comprehensive program into an sentence and he is to tence adult rehabilitation, granted good by period like of followed of prisoners. App. at 11. The conditional release. See 18 other adult U.S.C. §§ The of support also con- and 5017.5 release based on brief argument that Lewis tained an had been determination that offender has made agree longer Opinion was no 3. will first 2.Both sides Lewis In this refer to issue as prisoners after the the "transformation” issue and second issue finding. “nonsegregation” and "no further benefit" sentence Moreover, as the issue. appears there to be record evi- indicating that after 1982 received 4. order also dence any The denied Lewis’ motion for a YCA, temporary restraining accorded under the App. other benefits order. 235. On general despite appellees' assertions to that March 1988 Lewis had filed a motion for a Brief, Supplemental Appellees' restraining temporary prelimi- effect. at 8-9. order and/or pressed argument, nary injunction directing this issue at oral When defendants “not to appellees pendency counsel for the admitted that there or move transfer” Lewis "nothing litigation, bringing record” to show that Lewis "in retaliation for his any Corpus of the YCA after received benefits writ of Habeas record, Action." District court She later asserted that Lewis was housed with document no. at 1. youths, larger facility but within a con- other taining supported provides YCA adults. This assertion is The number of alternatives to record, sentencing: suspension did however. Nor the district traditional 5010(a); any probation, court find that Lewis retained YCAbenefits. and see commitment for prison- supervision court referred to and That Lewis as "adult treatment an indeterminate er”, app. emphasized period up years, up and his "adult treat- to four an addi- ment”, app. years supervision, 5010(b) at 239. we review tional two see §§ this case 5017(c); understanding deprived with the and commitment treatment Lewis was law, 5010(c); sentencing. after all benefits the 1982 authorized see rehabilitation, conclusions, progress legal towards the district court’s sufficient youthful for a of possible plenary. and thus it is thus our standard review is the YCA to con fender sentenced under review the first transformation issue. an adult who has been longer fined than court in 1982 specifically offense. convicted of the same See John found that Lewis would no (10th F.2d Rodgers, 756 Cir. son v. status under the 1985).6 shortly thereafter Lewis’ incarceration important principle began. An the YCA argues adults that he is that, person committed for treat once entitled to time credits based on a YCA, the ment sentence is de theory YCA sentence was trans- person, signed to fit the not the crime. formed into an adult as a result of 434, 418 at Dorszynski, 94 S.Ct. the “no further benefit” in the 1982 person subject 3048. The committed is to sentencing. challenge Lewis does not study appropri and recommendation to as itself, 1982 only decision but treatment, ate see 18 U.S.C. 5014 §§ pursuant denial of to that 5015, range and to a of broad treatment sentence.8 options, ranging security from maximum previously “[njeither We have noted that forestry camps, confinement to 18 U.S. see Congressional history nor the statute aspect C. 5011. A fundamental § made any provision possibility for the youth program treatment offenders provided the treatment be would so unsuc- along segregated, requiring are with those cessful that the committed YCA offender treatment, serving from offenders similar might a during commit serious crime sentences, traditional criminal see 18 U.S.C. thereby required YCA sentence and be 5011, in order to “avoid the influence of § subsequent serve adult sentence.” association more in with the hardened Carlson, 415, Thompson v. 624 F.2d 420 418 94 Dorszynski, mates.” U.S. at Cir.1980). (3d Likewise, the YCA neither at 3048.7 S.Ct. explicitly provides for time credits nor time instructs as entitlement when

III. youth offender sentenced adult A. service the YCA sentence. challenging provided In denial of for his Good time credits are corpus, separate Lewis seeks scheme. statutory for habeas review federal See pursuant according adult to their commitment as an needs for treatment.” In 5010(d). provision, Arnold, applicable penalty see Dancy § United States ex rel. 572 F.2d study may The court also order commitment for (3d Cir.1978), 107 this section to construed youth and observation to determine whether a youth require that offenders sentenced under likely offender is to benefit from treatment un- segregated prison be adult "[¡Insofar YCA must 5010(b) (c). 5010(e). der or See §§ § language ers. We held that the as provision practical" only referred to the appears 6. Lewis’ YCA sentence be no youth for the offenders institutions treatment of than the maximum sentence which he solely purpose, used should be for that and not subject originally sen- have been youth segre provision to the offenders be pursu- tenced as an adult. Lewis was sentenced gated offenders. Id. at 109. 5010(c), app. ant to 18 U.S.C. see § provides youth that a sentenced for over six years "any may can further receive receiving good 8.Had he been time credits since be authorized law for the offense or offenses sentence, his 1982 adult Lewis' release would be 5010(b), of which he stands convicted." Section greatly are accelerated. He asserts: "There contrast, provides youth may that a sen- months, days, approximately years, penalty imprisonment tenced "in lieu of the credit at calculation is time issue. This provided otherwise law." sentence, 12-year Lewis served based on a since years 15-year YCA sentence states, part: prac- Section 5011 "Insofar as U.S.C. § October 1982. Pursuant to 18 tical, agencies such institutions and shall days per an inmate receives 10 month youth used offenders, for treatment committed years credit is 10 or more.” if his sentence youth and such offenders shall be Supplemental Appellant, at 15 n. Brief offenders, segregated from other and classes committed offenders shall be 71 8 curiam). (Supp.1988) (repealed guid- We look to these cases for

18 U.S.C. § ance. 1984).9 credits are allowed Good of an offense convicted “[e]ach Johnson, petitioner and confined in a States against the United year zero-to-six sentence under the institution penal or correctional defi- comparable sentence for an where the (empha- than for life.” Id. other nite term adult who commits the same offense was a sen- added). youth offenders Because sis three-year maximum. While to 18 U.S.C. are pursuant

tenced petitioner witnessed a Attorney custody of placed in assault and was administrative supervision until for treatment General safety. The district detention for his own by 18 U.S.C. discharged provided protective court found that while he was are for an indefinite sentences such custody, participate he could not provisions gen- required pro- term. rehabilitative minimum offenders. apply to YCA erally grams. do not 756 F.2d at 81. The court summa- petitioner’s situation and conclud- rized the United Staudmier Cir.1974) curiam). 1191, 1192, (10th (per ed as follows: lacked the rehabilitative ben- [Petitioner] Robinson, 454 v. In Ralston YCA, yet he efits of the was (1981), L.Ed.2d 345 70 102 S.Ct. adult, longer sentence than would that, prisoner held where a Supreme Court early release without incentive con under the YCA is serving a sentence good-time that an adult based credit serving the crime while of another victed enjoy. In view of the clear con- “judge sen original who gressional expressed in the intent youth offender to a consecu tences [the] petitioner’s the conditions of incarcera- may require the of term tive adult legally unacceptable. tion were the remainder of his serve fender also Additionally, rejected the court Id. adult.” at youth Id. argument prisoner government’s that the The Court also stated at 243. S.Ct. responsible himself was somehow for his sentencing judge in such a case that the if the predicament. The court stated that explicit should make an could not fulfill its administration longer youth youth would provide rehabilita- duty under the YCA during the remainder of status programs, it taken remedi- tive should have 218-19, at 244. 102 S.Ct. sentence. Id. by granting good time al action credits. has not addressed Supreme Id.10 in is enti this situation whether a States, In 778 F.2d 1444 good credits. This Scott v. United receive tled to however, (10th Cir.1985) curiam), shortly addressed, (per decided two has been issue Johnson, after the court faced the issue of by the United States Court cases decided under the That court whether an offender sentenced for the Tenth Circuit. Appeals parole the terms of his good time credits in YCA who violated award of ordered an (10th good time credits for time F.2d Cir. should receive Rodgers, 756 Johnson v. facility separate failed to 1985), served denied credits Scott United but Cir.1985) petitioner States, (10th (per him from adult inmates. The paragraph, 10. In the same Although dealing the court hinted at chapter issue, repealed aspects its equitable credits was on October which would of this years provisions after remain in force for five come to the fore in Scott v. United regard repeal, individuals the date of (10th Cir.1985): petitioner F.2d 1444 "[S]ince prior to November who committed the offense opportuni- was not accorded rehabilitative preceding 1987. See note 18 U.S.C. quid pro quo for his ties that were the sentence, 1984). (Supp.1988) (repealed Because Lewis’ entitled, equity and con- he is offense for which he was as an adult sentenced science, good-time he would have credit years passed occurred in and five have not he adult sentence." earned had repeal, statutory since the date of 756 F.2d at 81. provisions analysis are relevant to our of this issue. (citation omitted). at 1446 originally YCA Id. was lan- burglary, year guage a zero-to-six term at the opinion end of the Scott ap- paroled years later. was two While pears but limit the reach the court’s hold- incarcerated, however, segre- he was not ing specifically to where the cases prisoners.11 While out on gated violated has his therefore can- burgla- he was another parole, convicted fairly look for equitable to the court misrepresented and he conviction at ry, relief. hearing. subsequent parole revocation The district court in the instant case de- parole was and was reincar- His revoked termined that Lewis’ situation was more of his sen- cerated to serve the remainder Johnson, akin Scott than that Lewis He apparently Id. at 1445-46. tence. was denied time credits because it pre-parole the issue of the YCA vio- raised his own which led misbehavior to his his reincarceration. lation after 1982 conviction and as an adult. recognized Initially, court Scott Therefore, concluded, the court equity did good time credits in similar it had allowed justify awarding time cred- The court circumstances Johnson. de- addition, App. its. the court relief, however, stating: nied simply determined was not autho- agree with the district court’s [W]e rized under YCA to award time cred- appellant that the is not enti- conclusion its: being time credits for incar- tled However, regardless equities, recog- with adult inmates. As cerated equitable pow- will not exercise its Rodgers, the nized in allow- Johnson ers, assuming powers it has such in this in such ance of circum- circumstance, grant petitioner remedy stances is an and as provide. that which the does not statute granted “in should be where such serving Petitioner is a YCA sentence. equity petitioner the and conscience” petitioner The provide YCA does not with court’s conclu- so entitled. district eligibility good time to earn credits. The equities did sion that the not favor the provision statute does not make for a granting of of such relief the bar, nor, situation like the one as is appellant’s burglary conviction subse- evident from legislative history, the did quent parole to his is consistent with the Congress such a contemplate situation. conclusions of other courts confronted Carlson, Thompson v. F.2d seeking parole similar re- violators (3d Cir.1980). will fill-in The court not Although lief. the district court did Therefore, the interstices of the statute. for a grant failure to the will be denied. segregate in- YCA offenders adult at 239-40. Id. mates, such not relief was accorded of- agree Initially, do with the dis- we the fenders who had violated terms of that, the court YCA does not trict because parole. Similarly,

their Hernandez credits, provide (Order specifically Rogers, Judg- No. 84-2353 powerless such ment) (10th grant are an award. 1985), we July Cir. this court deciding similarly novel issue—wheth- the time credits affirmed denial of prisoner consecutively ground the er petitioner’s violation prevented the while a YCA sentence could parole terms of his the adult of general popula- of returned to the award relief. be 11. The court stated: which do not the YCA in institutions segregate such offenders adult inmates appel- Until his March compliance and remain in with the mandate lant was incarcerated at Federal Correc- Act. of the Youth Corrections den, Watts v. Had Lompoc, tional Institution at California which (10th [1981]). segregate Cir. did not inmates, YCA offenders from adult appellant has not thereby depriving appellant Since Watts v. Hadden inmates been incarcerated with adult in viola benefits intended under the YCA. Also in 1981, this court ruled the Bureau tion of the YCA. of Pris- ons could not incarcerate offenders sentenced 778 F.2d at 1445. ly of his the remainder YCA sen- should have some other measure early

tion for appar- stated: “It is ... release. tence—this presented by this factual ent that the issue grant do think Nor we that to contemplation in the situation was credits under the circumstances of this YCA, Congress it enacted when agree case does violence to the YCA. We rule, that, required we will be however that, scheme, with the view under the YCA fill in interstices of the statute.” “may regarded quid rehabilitation as a Carlson, Thompson 624 F.2d at 419. pro quo for a confinement.” John- just that, proceeded holding to do We Rodgers, (quoting son v. 756 F.2d at 80 prisoner need not while Carter v. United F.2d of his remainder first sentence (D.C.Cir.1962)).13 When despite YCA.12 We did so under the prisoners, is housed critical nothing in the YCA fact that addressed aspect lost, program the rehabilitative subsequent im- effect of a adult sentence and the credits to re- during service of a posed YCA sentence. appropriate. duce the sentence is this is a difficult issue on while agree Thus we with the Johnson exists, guidance little we are not as petitioner if significant is denied the district court fill in the

hesitant as here, segregation— rehabilitative benefits— statute, interstices of the rea- afforded and is also denied the exists to do so. son good time credits which would reduce his imprisonment the terms of his providing Neither the statute “legally unacceptable.” are Id. at 81. We good time credit nor the YCA address this awarding good think that time credits aas believe, however, problem. cannot early fallback measure of release re- when Congress problem, considered habilitation is abandoned the most rea- accept resulting the unfairness when way sonable to reconcile the YCA and the is, effect, caught prisoner between the remedy time credits statute. This denied the two statutes and benefits goals supports the of both statutes and noted, either. As the court Johnson prisoners also leads to a fair result rehabilitation, purpose of the YCA is course, this situation. Of who early the indicator for release under the following receives a Ral- by good is not the sentence reduced longer ston determination no retains progress time the offender’s but rather only YCA benefits but is entitled toward 756 F.2d at 80. rehabilitation. rights privileges of an inmate this, is once rehabilitation aban an adult sentence.14 statutory goal doned as a and as a both release, early acknowledge Ap- measure of the incarceration that the Court of We purpose peals and similar- for the Tenth came to a differ- effectuates a different Circuit they example, portion Thompson 12. The decision was issued to cite a of Ralston in which Supreme the Ralston decision in the Court discussed the effect of a "no benefit” finding among split unexpired the circuits in resolved a on "the remainder of an YCA Thompson Appellees, (citing See at favor of the view. 454 U.S. at 12 sentence...." Brief 213, Ralston, 241). 203 & n. 102 S.Ct. at 236 & n. 1. 454 U.S. at 102 S.Ct. at this, appellees imply From that because the case, Scott, 13. In this Johnson and unlike unexpired Court referred to the sentence as a pursuant the defendants were sentenced to 18 sentence”, ‘YCA then the sentence could not be 5010(b), pursuant U.S.C. § Lewis was sentenced sentence, considered transformed into an adult 5010(c) §to have received and thus he could it could not merit the therefore award the same sentence been an adult. See had he good time credits. offenders, Nonetheless, supra, n. 6. all YCA argument may easily against The above work including pursuant those to sentenced however, appellees, because later in the Ralston 5010(c), subject longer remain to confinement opinion the Court stated that "in several circum- in the sense that their sentences do not contem- plate eligibility stances, permits the YCA offender ini- time credits. tially sentenced under the YCAto be treated as re- Appellees an adult what would otherwise seek to resolve on a for- this issue basis, arguing mainder the YCAsentence." 454 U.S. at malistic that Lewis’ after sentence added) (footnote (emphasis 102 S.Ct. at 242 1982 was still a "YCA sentence" and had not Thus, omitted). Supreme been transformed into an Court’s character- "adult sentence”. For Scott, disagree conclusion in but we adult ent sentence which he allegedly reasoning was not prisoners. from adult court’s that case.15 Specifically, he seeks time allowing good time does The statute credits credits “for October of such preclude credits through April, 1982, when the Federal Cor- originally sentenced an offender rectional Institution Petersburg, Virgi- pursuant adult and later incarcerated nia, was converted to facility.” a YCA parole violation. A that situa- Supplemental Brief for Appellant, at 12-13. credits, would be time tion entitled assert, Appellees however, that Lewis nev- assuming he rules has followed presented er this claim before the district incarcerated. 18 U.S.C. while petition in his habeas and that we then, see, why It is difficult to an offender therefore should not appeal. consider it on initially sentenced YCA who la- Appellees, Brief of at 9-10. ter violates be treated differ- should Although this issue free from ently than someone as an doubt, analysis our of Lewis’ peti- parole. later If time who violates brief, tion and accompanying as well as the are in the latter awarded situation posture case, of this indicates that the non- they awarded then should also be segregation issue was raised below. Al- former.16 though Lewis’ habeas itself men- reasons, For above we hold that Lew- issue, tions the transformation entitled to is is credits for support brief in petition presents he has been with adults incarcerated nonsegregation issue. That alleges brief the time nonsegregation violations based on would no from the YCA.17 prior to his adult and it alleges underlying nonsegrega- facts B. argument.18 tion argues Lewis also that he is recognize entitled nonsegregation periods argument appeared credits for before his in the “Statement of best, ambiguous, ization and we cannot that Lewis himself is blame for his any guidance glean present Ralston on sub- second and thus his incarcera- issue, adult, prevent stantive which was not then before the tion not sufficient to Deciding him, Court. this issue based on given whether award of our sentence is Lewis’ labelled "YCAsentence” legal analysis. merely “adult sentence” is an exercise semantics. calculating purposes 17. For the accrual of reasons, reject For similar the district credits, the relevant date is October distinction, Ralston, be- also based on sentencing. the date of the 1982 adult tween the "treatment” of an inmate and the app. "nature” of the itself. See 237. 18. In the section of the habeas brief entitled Case,” stated: "Statement Lewis distinguish could 15. We Scott the instant 1, 1980, February (through On and includ- on case the basis court in Scott denied that the 1981,) ing confined Mr. Lewis was at the peti- specifically because credits F.C.I., Memphis where was confined in he parole, tioner violated terms of his and mandates, of the YCA with adults at violation parole in this case not a Lewis was violator. facility, period. throughout this decision, read, fairly may Scott The be limited However, 1981, through and involving parole. to cases cussion, violation of See dis- October— including he was However, confined supra. December— to the extent facility, again Reno Mr. at the El F.C.I. similarly was Lewis denied YCA benefits conduct, was of the YCA Lewis mandates, confined violation substantially of his own result is in facility through- with adults of that position, equitable perspec- the same tive, from an period. out this as the we violator Scott. 1981, through including On and do not find this distinction to be useful. December— December Mr. Lewis was confined F.C.I., Moreover, Virginia Petersburg facility. He legal at the 16. we this issue as mat- decide adults, facility, be- was confined at this ter rather than as an analyzing one. areWe facility changed was over to a YCA the YCA and the credits fore Therefore, April facility from De- statute order to find what we consider to —1982. 1981, through including April— most reasonable interrelation of both. and cember— opinion, app. not tion issue. memorandum section brief and See of the was Case” separate “Question at 236-40. Nor did the court make Present- included as findings actually “Argument” in the sec- as to whether Lewis was issue ed” or as an appreciated segregation prisoners may have denied we tion. While nonsegregation 1982 adult sentence. to his Because delineation clearer issue, below, disposition of we none- of our this issue how- a distinct argument as ever, fairly necessary remand the issue was is this theless determine fact-finding. to the district court for petition below. matter in the habeas raised supported only Our determination purposes We will assume for of our habeas by our review analysis that Lewis was indeed housed with brief, recogni- but also supporting through adults at various times from 1979 pro se dur- proceeding Lewis was tion that 1982, in violation of the YCA. Under the proceedings stages of ing all statute, applicable may Fed.R.Civ.P. court.19 the district before prisoners awarded to incarcerated pleadings shall be so 8(f) states that “[a]ll “for a definite term.” 18 U.S.C. justice.” substantial as to do construed During alleged the time of the incidents rule is the well-estab- Consistent with determination), (prior to the 1982 Ralston pro prisoner’s that a se principle lished however, Lewis was a YCA sen subject to strin- less pleadings should be tence, for a term. which is not definite specificity and their com- gent standards 5010(c)(the 18 U.S.C. YCA section under See, liberally. construed plaints should be 1979); sentenced in which Lewis was Carlson, 632 F.2d e.g., Micklus v. States, Staudmier United (3d Cir.1980); ex rel. States Walker United (10th Cir.1974) curiam) (be (per (3d F.2d County, 599 Fayette YCA sentences are for an indefinite cause Cir.1979).20 term, good generally not time credits are offenders). Thus, nonsegrega- applicable to YCA Although raised the below, does not authorize the review of the district statute our tion issue time credits in this instance. Because clearly indicates that opinion nonsegregation legal remedy precluded, would have did not reach Lewis’ equitable powers our if only the transforma- to exercise we were argument, decided but Regarding pro (or April 1982) se Mr. Lewis the liberal construction of at least until — pleadings, one authoritative source has com- being of the YCAman- held in violation mented: because of this confinement. date original). (emphasis App. at 25 an- The federal rules do not adhere to the parties to submit district court asked the principle pleading that a must be con- cient holdings in Scott v. briefs on the issues strongly against pleader. strued most Nor (10th Cir.1985), F.2d 1444 United require do the federal courts technical exact- (10th Cir.1985). Rodgers, F.2d 79 Johnson v. against inferences ness or draw refined Case” in his brief in re- In his "Statement of pleader; they rather make a determined effort request, repeated sponse the alle- to that attempting to understand what he is to set supporting gations the habeas in his brief pleading made and to construe the in his fa- forth vor, specific petition. added some dates justice He also requires. whenever so This brief, left out in the first particularly dealing where these had been true when a court is allegation layman that he had not been complaint and he added an drawn unskilled cases, prisoners, in violation of from adult the law. In these technical deficiencies YCA, during complaint leniently of October 1979 in the will be treated and the 1980, pleading the entire will be to de- through January well as scrutinized as any legally cognizable app. termine if claim can periods listed in the first brief. court, found within it. the district In both briefs before 175-76. pleading judged by A will be its substance incon- demonstrated some confusion and Lewis and, according than to form or label alleged rather its periods sistency as to the exact give possible, to Nonetheless, if will be construed to effect it cannot be dis- YCA violations. all its averments. nonsegregation argument was puted Miller, Wright C. & A. Federal Practice and 5 in Lewis' briefs. contained 1286, (1969) (footnotes Procedure omitted). at 381-84 29, 1988, most 19. On November counsel for Lewis We find the above discussion appropriate appointed. in this case. for equity, eq- his misconduct affect an award of credits does to order parties uitable relations these violations.21 between the on a matter this before court. similar can envision situations While we prisoner would deserve to this one where Second, although the instant habeas cor- credits, equitable award of matter, pus is a civil the underlying in own conduct this we Lewis’ believe policy criminal law issues involve concerns granting him such a precludes case our discretionary application which color our equity in petitioner A must come remedy. clean hands doctrine in a different hands,” and the with “clean court if than had doctrine arisen the more illegal petitioner’s wrongful or conduct typical business or tort Spe- law context. granting eq- may dissuade court cifically, misconduct this im- Lewis’ case on an otherwise meritorious uitable relief plicates important public policy considera- See, Lewis, v. 85 N.J. e.g., Faustin claim. maintaining prison security tions and 1105, (N.J.1981). 511, 507, 427 A.2d safety, avoiding rewarding and of 1982, guilty Lewis was found and sen- violate prisoners who the law and assaulting prison guard while tenced for endanger prison personnel. rules custody, in violation of 18 U.S.C. federal facts, On these we decline to exercise our 113(d). equitable powers to order award of recognize that the assault occurred We may time credits for YCA violations which alleged issue. after the YCA violations at through have occurred from 1979 wrong invoked under the Ordinarily Scott decision is consistent with Our defeat a must clean hands maxim to suit (10th United 778 F.2d 1444 Cir. to stand in direct and immediate relation 1985) curiam), supra, (per discussed petitioner equity which the seeks grant good court declined time cred- See, e.g., Stauffer, enforce. Stauffer to a its who violated (Pa. 236, 351 A.2d Pa. alleged after the YCA violations. Untermann, 19 N.J. 1976); Untermann v. wrong, Lewis has committed a substantial 507, 517-18, (N.J.1955); 117 A.2d Appellees public, against both the DeFuniak, Equity, Modern Handbook on wrong sufficiently this related (1956) (petitioner may p. Sec. litigation from equitable to bar this if receive relief he has been relief this case.22 guilty any inequitable wrongful or con- respect duct “transaction IV. on”). Nonetheless, subject matter sued eq- that Lewis is not entitled believe above, For the reasons discussed we will case, for reasons. uitable relief two deny- court reverse the order district First, petition for cor- ing Lewis’ led to his 1982 Lewis’ writ misconduct summary pus judgment. thus and his motion for sentence as adult and is related will remand this case to the district our decision to award time credits We gost-Balston enter with instructions to an order determination YCA violations litigation. granting calculat- part —a which is of this credits matter Therefore, although misconduct did ed from October date Lewis’ he seeks Lewis was sentenced an adult. not create situation which seeking By our oner time served contrast post-Ralston presently for the determination "transforma- conditions of the YCA is violative determination, legal supra tion” was a see n. serving an adult and thus has a defi- point became because at Lewis' sentence time for not address the nite release. do definite. problem of whether or in what manner might applied to reduce a YCA 22. above We noted that could conceive rehabilitation, for which rather than sentence specific who had hands" cases where “clean date, the time of re- advance remains equitable remedy would deserve lease. We would limit credits. this comment case, pris- to the cases similar instant STAPLETON, Judge, Circuit filed Robinson for a writ of corpus contending Concurring. that he should be treated as a YCA throughout inmate holding join I in the court’s remainder of his YCA sentence. As a first entitled to earned after credit defense, custodian, line of Robinson’s Ral- finding that he the district court’s ston, gives asserted that the YCA the Bu- from YCA treatment could not benefit dur- reau of Prisons authority to determine that original ing of the remainder service a YCA offender will not fur- join I further in the YCA sentence. ther Supreme YCA treatment. The Court holding Lewis is entitled to no relief rejected this “extraordinarily broad inter- period preceding respect to pretation” “any of the as well as separately my finding. I write to record interpretation grant that would the Bureau suggestion disagreement independent authority deny an offender majority Appeals of the Court of segregation the treatment and from adults in the Scott Johnson the Tenth Circuit sentencing that a court mandates.” 454 part on the 211; that a failure 240; cases U.S. at 102 S.Ct. at 70 L.Ed.2d statutory to honor its Bureau of Prisons segregation regarding and reha- mandate defense, As a second line of Ralston ar- may youthful offenders alone bilitation gued that the implicitly YCA authorizes a materially altering provide justification sentencing second court to make a determi- validly conditions of a im- the terms and nation that the defendant will receive I deny relief to

posed sentence. benefit from YCA treatment respect period preceding Lewis with original remainder of the sentence and that sentencing if he made, even had come to once such a determination has been duty provide the Bureau no has a hands” and had been us with “clean able segregation required by the treatment and Prisons, during that the Bureau show Supreme the YCA. The Court concluded up not to to its period, elected live “Congress apparently that while did not segregation provide from adult in- duty to specific problem,” consider this the “histo- mates. ry and structure of the YCA ... demon- Robinson, Ralston In 454 U.S. Congress’ strate intent that a court—but (1981), 70 L.Ed.2d 345 S.Ct. may require officials— originally respondent Robinson serve remainder of a YCA ten-year imprison- to a term of as an adult after the offender has completing ment under the YCA. Before received a consecutive adult term.” 454 sentence, the service of that he was con- 214; 242; U.S. at 102 S.Ct. at 70 L.Ed.2d. assaulting victed of a federal officer and the Court also concluded that Since sentenced to an additional 66 months was sentencing judge the second had made a of incarceration to run consecutive to the sufficiently clear that no benefit The second YCA sentence. would be derived YCA treatment dur- respondent judge found that the would de- ing the remainder of the YCA no further benefit from treatment un- rive denied relief to Ralston. provisions of the and declined der the Ralston, Supreme Court held

to sentence under that Act. After this position that one Robinson’s need not be sentence, the Prisons second Bureau of afforded YCA rehabilitative treatment and classified Robinson adult offender segregation. The issue of whether such pursuant policy limited to a written inmate is entitled to time credit the definition of a “YCA inmate” to However, ap- not before the Court. under the inmate sentenced YCA “who is proach Ralston utilized not also sentenced to concurrent or con- leads me to the conclusion that an inmate term, whether state or secutive adult feder- position in this is entitled to 205; 237; al.” 454 102 S.Ct. at following judicial credit determination of L.Ed.2d 345. “no further benefit.” Congress sentencing judge not think second did about exercises the Since stat- YCA utory authority recognized which an inmate a situation Ralston and an- subsequently convicted of sentence “no further makes a benefit” determina- crime, specific no intent with other had tion. I It follows that would respect time credit should good to whether any time credit for be- granted a “no following benefit” deter- if sentencing fore the 1982 he had even sentencing judge. mination the second prison guard a assaulted and even if he Ralston, must Accordingly, as in the courts to were able demonstrate that the Bureau using the history, fill this interstice struc- Prisons, during period, elected not ture, purpose YCA and the up duty provide segregation to its to live determining guides statute time as fly from adult inmates. It would Congress cho- would have what alternative face of to hold such a Ralston defalca- had sen it foreseen situation. part tion on the would Bureau alone court, justify through Ralston, a district an exercise the Court stressed

As scheme; otherwise, adopts statutory discretion or a two-track transforming sentencing youthful involving can judge no or her to sentence him either under time into one elect credit that can be reduced applicable YCA or under the adult stat- such credit.2 chosen, all If the latter ute. alternative sentences, in- governing adult

of the rules cluding those found in time stat-

ute, apply. The Court further Ralston thought Congress that if found conviction, it involving a second situation judge have wanted the second would to revisit decision between authorized changed El-Ro, two tracks in circum- M. John PEDUTO and token, By Inc., stances. the same when Appellants, judge the second track and second elects youthful offender thereafter is treated CITY OF NORTH inmate, I Congress an adult believe WILDWOOD, Appellee. want time credit to be award- would Further, I the rationale ed. believe No. 88-5809. awarding good counsels Appeals, United States Court of making If the such award. favor Third Circuit. provided all incentive behavior inmates in institution is other denied Argued Feb. solely YCA inmate because of a former 29, 1989. Decided June status, potential creates or her one or- security to the institutional threat de-

der that time statute was promote. signed Accordingly, I hold that Lewis is entitled to adult credit from of his 1982 on the second limited, holding My offense.1 would be however, to in which a those situations acknowledge parties agree majority that once that the second sen- I with the

1. Both tencing judge granted good made a Lewis would credit seeks and inmate, the remainder received benefit from he will be an adult inmate for all of this YCA sentence as YCA inmate. Lewis litigated purposes will not be entitled post-conviction relief issue in youthful the YCA. as a offender under proceeding Supp.App. and lost. 46-48.

Case Details

Case Name: Rev. Timothy L. Lewis v. Attorney General of the United States and Warden, United States Penitentiary at Lewisburg

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Date Published: Jun 28, 1989

Citation: 878 F.2d 714

Docket Number: 88-5515

Court Abbreviation: 3rd Cir.