Steven McGEE, Appellant v. Warden Jerry MARTINEZ
No. 11-4412
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Filed Dec. 10, 2012
505
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Dec. 3, 2012.
Finally, though the District Court did not devote any specific analysis to the conspiracy claim, it did decide a necessary predicate for the conspiracy, ruling that it did not have jurisdiction over the False Claims Act claims. Lacking jurisdiction to determine the underlying claims, the District Court was not empowered to decide the conspiracy claim. Though not mandatory, it would have been preferable for the District Court to have made explicit mention of the conspiracy count in its opinion. Yet, the District Court‘s determination to grant the appellees’ motion to dismiss—a motion that explicitly raised the conspiracy claim—was sufficient here to dispose of that claim in light of its thorough discussion of the False Claims Act claims on which the conspiracy was allegedly based.
For these reasons, we will affirm the order of the District Court.
Steven McGee, Miami, FL, pro se.
Kate L. Mershimer, Esq., Mark E. Morrison, Esq., Melissa A. Swauger, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Harrisburg, PA, for Jerry Martinez.
Before: SCIRICA, JORDAN and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM.
Steven McGee, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granting in part and denying in part his habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to
I.
Because we write primarily for the parties, who are familiar with the background of this case, we discuss that background only briefly here. This case was last before us in December 2010. At that time, we remanded the matter to the District Court for consideration of the merits of McGee‘s habeas petition. See McGee v. Martinez, 627 F.3d 933, 937 (3d Cir. 2010). A few weeks later, the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP“) transferred McGee from the Allenwood Federal Correctional Complex in White Deer, Pennsylvania, to the Federal Detention Center in Miami, Florida (“FDC-Miami“). McGee took the position that the transfer divested the District Court of jurisdiction over his petition. In November 2011, the District Court rejected that argument and issued an order granting in part and denying in part McGee‘s petition. This appeal followed.
In this appeal, McGee reiterates his claim that the District Court lost jurisdiction over his habeas petition when he was transferred to FDC-Miami. For substantially the reasons provided by the District Court, we agree that the transfer did not divest that court (or us) of jurisdiction over his petition. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 441 (2004); Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283, 306-07 (1944); Barden v. Keohane, 921 F.2d 476, 477 n. 1 (3d Cir. 1990).
To the extent McGee argues that the District Court overlooked a motion he had filed seeking declaratory relief, we conclude that remand is not necessary. The underlying claim in that motion was an access to the courts claim. Specifically, McGee alleged that, in light of copy restrictions imposed after he refused to agree to the BOP‘s schedule for paying the fine imposed at sentencing, he was prevented from supplementing an already voluminous submission in an action brought pursuant to
In light of the above, we will affirm the District Court‘s judgment. To the extent McGee seeks an order directing the BOP to transfer him to a “minimum security facility,” that request is denied.1