United States of America Ex Rel. Frank Esola, 53517 v. Ronald M. Groomes, Superintendent

law, prevent comply with the order by defendants and to its enforcement invasions of their foreclose simple answer is to privacy.” requires comply with law which com- by going attendance at school

pulsory Sporadic or occasional absence

school. though compulsory violative of

even law does not activate

requirement the state chal- statute here

action only triggered That

lenged. habit- truancy. apparently Plaintiff

ual how

complaining that he is uncertain

many compulso- times he can violate the requirement effec-

ry attendance before will be against action initiated him.

tive to interfere with the reasona-

We decline judgmental discretion to be exercised

ble exactly in defining authorities by school the thin ice ends.

where sum, we complaint hold to “at this case fails least for-

filed in equitable

mally allege[s] basis re-

lief,” Voyage Liquor Corp., Idlewild Bon 370 U.S.

supra, question constitutional pur- to raise is insubstantial.

ported Accord- judgment is affirmed.

ingly,

Affirmed. America ex rel.

UNITED STATES ESOLA, Appellant, Frank # GROOMES, Superintendent. M.

Ronald

No. 74-2197. Appeals, Court of Circuit. Third

Argued May Aug.

Decided Botwinick, J. Lud- Eric M. David Trenton, J., Stark, N.

wig, Stark appellant. Jr., Coleman, Monmouth M. James Shaw, Prosecutor, E. and Charles

County Jr., MacDuffie, Assistant III, A. Edward Freehold, J., Prosecutors, N. County appellee. FORMAN, VAN DUSEN

Before GARTH, Judges. Circuit THE COURT OF OPINION DUSEN, Judge. VAN Circuit challenges the district appeal This 5, 1974, August order filed corpus peti- plaintiff’s dismissed disagree with the We lower court’s tion. no cause of holding that action is January transfer he arising During this claim presented 1 and and convicted.3 On Detainers tried Interstate remand for further vacate petitioner, alleged that It was further therefore Danbury his after following his return proceedings. Jersey, requested transfer to New first any Danbury authorities not to allow 1974, 25, a Frank Esola filed On June a because of violation transfers future corpus a writ of habeas petition for on Detainers. Interstate for District Court the District the U.S. request was refused. The ,of Jersey alleged following and New 15, 1971, appellant filed On November 23, 1970, plaintiff June was facts. On trial in the state pro se motion County, a Monmouth New indicted on based a viola- dismiss the indictment jury possession for Jersey, grand of a IV(e) of the Interstate of Article tion possession vehicle motor stolen (hereinafter Detainers on 6, July 1970, property. On he was stolen was The motion renewed Agreement). plea entered arraigned, guilty, during trial denied in an order dated $5,000 released on bail. On 6, 18, July 1973, February 1972. On 1971, 15, petitioner received March Court, Superior Jersey Appellate New year sentence from District four U.S. conviction, Division, specifi- affirmed Jersey the District of New for on Court cally rejecting relating the claim to a began charge and an unrelated service On Agreement. violation of the Novem- sentence. 1973, Jersey 27, Supreme New ber Court denied certification. Neither 21, 1971, On April Esola was transfer Appellate set court nor Division trial red via a writ of corpus habeas prose ad petitioner’s denying reasons for forth quendum from the Federal Correctional claim. Danbury, Institution Connecticut County, Monmouth New Jersey, exhausted, to stand having been State remedies April 27, 1971, trial. On he was re corpus proceeding habeas instant Danbury turned to without having been Petitioner contended that was initiated. Thereafter, tried. unspecified proce to have state was entitled convic he dures, Esola was returned to Monmouth Jersey New violated tion voided because 10, County 1971, on June September 25, IV(e) of the N.J.S.A. 1971, and January 6, 1972 for trial. he was 2A:159A-4(e),4 when returned adopted Thirty-seven Appellant’s states have 3. Inter brief filed in this Court states Detainers. The United there was a Jersey fifth transfer to New purpose and the District Columbia entered sentencing. States The state 1970, appended Act of Dec. into the corpus records peti- habeas 1-8, Pub.L.No.91-538, §§ 84 Stat. sentencing show that ap- occurred (1975 App. p. Supp.). proximately 18 U.S.C.A. month one after the trial but do (3d Hogan, separate 505 F.2d 1221 n.1 Grant v. not reflect whether a transfer was 1974). purpose. Cir. effected Since the case is being remanded, plaintiff opportu- will have an allegation para- petition The contains nity to file a Motion to Amend his Petition in 12(a) page graph 3: the District if he so desires. 21, 1971, April while incarcerated at “On petition The names Ronald N. Groomes as at Dan- Institution Correctional the Federal respondent. apparently Esola has been (hereinafter bury, to as referred Connecticut transferred to another institution in New Jer- pursuant petitioner, Danbury), to a writ of sey. remand, After a Motion to Amend the Prosequendum, secured Ad Caption to reflect the new custodian should be Prosecutor, County Monmouth Jennings entertained. United States ex rel. County, Jer- transported Monmouth Pennsylvania, (3d 1970). indict- sey aforementioned on the ment.” IV(e) 4. Article below, explained writ constituted As 2A:159A-4(e) provides: Agreement. the terms detainer any indictment, alleged Also, wanted “If trial is not had on infor- Esola complaint contemplated hereby a violation of N.J.S.A. mation prosecute him for prisoner’s being prior to the returned to the 2A: 139-1. whether, function is to determine brought to having been Court’s Danbury without assuming alleged all of the facts petition the answer to the trial. true, petition to be states a Prosecutor denied all County Monmouth upon granted. claim which relief can be allegations. factual Federal Practice part of the 2A Moore’s 12.08.6 which are records f are the docu- this Court before record Interstate on De were attached to the habe- ments comprehensive tainers is a statute which petition. designed major prob handle two facing against lems whom a held that state rem The district court representing open detainer required by had been exhausted as edies charges in another has 2254(b) but U.S.C. dismissed the lodged. Article I the Agreement7 citing ex rel. petition, jurisdictions party Russell, recog states that F.Supp. (E.D. Huntt that detainers and the Pa.1968), difficulty nize securing rapid disposition in (3d aff’d. 406 F.2d 774 Cir. “pro of them 1969). Huntt involved a claim that an which pro duce uncertainties obstruct illegal subsequent extradition rendered a prisoner of treatment grams and rehabil long conviction void. Based on a line of 5 implement To the right itation.” to Court cases a Supreme rejecting this con to tention, trial and minimize the speedy relief was denied. inter Huntt does case, however, with a treatment this ference and not control rehabilitation, the Agreement there was no in creates assertion that case that rights previously non-existent. was violative of several the rendition the Inter Agreement on state Detainers. gives to Agreement8 III of the Article disposi to demand prisoner a Although opinion of the court indictment, informa any untried of tion procedural state the basis did not below subject of complaint which is or tion dismissed, which the upon lodged party a state. If detainer a is clear that the court treated record within is not commenced 180 answer as a respondent’s motion to and a continuance is request of days upon to state a for failure claim dismiss court, good for open in granted granted, relief could be Fed.R. shown, prisoner or his with cause 12(b)(6), United States ex rel. Civ.P. appropriate then the present,9 counsel (3d Brierley, Gaugler jurisdiction in which the granted the This 1973),and motion. indictments, imprisonment informations or place pursuant on untried com- original of to hereof, plaints, securing speedy difficulties in V(e) indictment, and Article such infor- already persons incarcerated in complaint any trial of other or shall not be of fur- mation produce jurisdictions, effect, uncertainties which ther force or and the court shall enter programs prisoner treatment dismissing preju- obstruct and an order the same with Accordingly policy it is the rehabilitation. dice.” party purpose States and the companion provision, 18 U.S.C. encourage expeditious agreement (1975 IV(e), Appendix Supp.) Article is identi- disposition charges orderly of such and de- cal. proper any status termination indictments, on untried based all detainers Collins, See, g., 342 U.S. e. Frisbie complaints. party informations Illinois, (1952); Ker v. L.Ed. 541 proceedings find that with States also refer- (1886). 30 L.Ed. U.S. 7 S.Ct. detainers, charges and to such ence while jurisdiction, emanating from another cannot 81(a)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P., provides 6. Rule that coopera- properly had in the absence of apply Rules of Procedure to ha- Federal Civil procedures. purpose It is tive proceedings except corpus to the extent beas provide cooperative agreement such procedure is modified statute. that procedures.” ' provision The federal 2A:159A-3. identical. provides: 7. Article I of the 2A:159A-3(a). provi- party The federal “The charges find 9. N.J.S.A. out- standing against prisoner, identical. a sion detainers based provisions IV pending shall enter the Article charge is outstanding purpose sending charges interruptions dismissing the order insure an Thus, minimiz- Article III are incarceration jurisdiction’s prejudice.10 with mechanism, exchange added ed, for the small providing in concerned prisoner, placed prosecutor hardship on being invoked capable limits, a guarantee demanding regarding time the constitutional insure procedure obtaining for simplified speedy trial.11 presence is made available. defendant’s IV, hand, on the other is de Article With this basic statutory framework simplified provide pro both to signed mind, we turn to the presented issues allowing demanding cedure appeal. gain presence defendant trial, happens and to what control I. JURISDICTION following rendition demanding IV(a) 2254(a) Title 28 provides U.S.C. § that absent affirmative interven states part application an for a writ of governor the confining by a person custody day a 30 jurisdiction,13 waiting and after pursuant to a state court judgment shall temporary custody period, “only be entertained ground prosecutor approved, which is re by the in custody he is in violation of the and transmitted the court hav corded laws ... of the United States.” jurisdiction pending over the ing charge Appellant Frank Esola’s claim is that he be by sending honored the state. shall custody is in in violation IV(e) of Article IV(c) requires any Article trial the Agreement Interstate on Detain possible by the use of the made Article ers, 4(e). N.J.S.A. 2A: At oral ar 159A— right IV(a) shall be commenced within gument Court, before this counsel days good unless a continuance appellee conceded a claim arising court, granted open is pris the cause under the Jersey New enactment of the being present. or his counsel Final oner agreement presented a claim under the IV(e)14 provides Article if the ly, laws of the United States.15 Because prior is not held to the requirement goes jurisdiction to the state, sending to the then the “in return federal grant of a court to dictment, complaint information shall relief, some discussion is warranted.16 effect, any force or the court shall enter an order dis 2 of P.L. Congress provided in section missing prejudice.” the same with 91-538: 5(c). provi- N.J.S.A. Appendix 10. (1975 federal Supp.) General. 18 U.S.C. 2A:159A— is sion identical. § 3. Hooey, In 4(e). Smith v. 11. 393 U.S. 14. N.J.S.A. provi- The federal 2A:159A— (1969), L.Ed.2d year decided the sion is identical. federal enactment of the before argument at oral 15. This concession constitut- right the Court held that the constitutional to by appellee. position change in the No ed a suspended speedy trial was not because a the explanation shift was offered. In power compel did not have the memorandum, submitted, prior supplemental presence at defendant who trial of a was a argument, Court, at the of the jurisdiction. prisoner in another There is position appellee that Esola’s had taken indication Smith decision some claim did not arise under the laws of the Unit- adoption spurred of the ed States. S.Rep.No.91-1356, Cong., Congress. 91st 2d (1970) Cong. always Admin.News, required 3 U.S.Code 16. A federal is Sess. & to exam- (1970). 12(h)(2); p. 4864 ine Mansfield, own Fed.R.Civ.P. Michigan Ry. Coldwater Lake 2A:159A-4(a). provi- The federal 12. Swan, 4 S.Ct. 111 U.S. L.Ed. 462 identical. is sion (1884). applies to the United As the Attorney States, “governor” defined as the is programs unduly rehabilitative various on De- Interstate “The numerous, unnecessary hampered law and hereby enacted into is tainers to a with transfers outstand- on United States into entered short, ing charges. on behalf behalf and its own single as a jurisdic- cannot be viewed with all of Columbia District single legislative body. substantially enactment joining in legally tions at binding it is a law on least . . Rather following form: sovereigns as case two as far is con- Supp.)).17 Appendix (1975 (18 U.S.C. Rights arising the Agree- cerned. under joint flow from the actions of ment both alleges that The habeas party jurisdictions. A right Esola, an inmate of the Federal while statute, Jersey under New claimed Danbury, Institution Correctional actually to the extent found Freehold, Jersey, transferred exist, is therefore claimed also under prisoner, occasions. As several United States A statute. claim aris- have been accom the transfer could States, ing under a of the United statute Agree through the use of plished P.L. a claim specifically aris- 91— possible This ment. ing the “laws ... under the United sending jurisdiction, both meaning within of 28 United States” state, States, demanding and the U.S.C. § parties agree Jersey, were both machinery If the created ment. claim, We that a therefore hold Agreement had used, then N.J.S.A. prisoner custody in federal 2A:159A-4(a) entitled the would have in time the Detainers tempo County Prosecutor Monmouth voked, arising 2A-.159A—1 under N.J.S.A. custody pur rary seq., operates conjunction et pose standing In order make trial. the federal enactment effective, this New entitlement (1975 Appendix Supp.), 18 U.S.C. Appendix (1975 Supp.) Article U.S.C. arising claim “laws V(a) IV(b) would have re States,” within mean Danbury at to quired the warden honor ing 28 of U.S.C. § It the request. is clear that statutes the Congress consenting was not to a com- jurisdiction are of each relevant nec I, pact states under Article Sec- between the essary accomplish to transfer. 10, 3, of the in Clause Constitution 91-538, being pre- to in addition P.L. since consent had been pro- given which 44 variety viously by in advance Stat. 909 typical of the statute duties, reproduced 112(a). 4 (1934), bind- at imposes U.S.C. rights and vides recognized legislative as well as in Congress the case New ing on in Thus, history while Esola’s of P.L. 91—538 that its consent to States. the compact already effective re- the as a had trial and speedy rights to vi- allegedly given. Cong. 3 were been See U.S.Code treatment habilitative transfers, Admin.News, Cong., 1970, the 91st 2d Sess. multiple the by olated reason, were also we p. States 4866. For need the United rights question transfers. the of whether a determine by the same violated Government, joinder in through arising a compact claim under con- Federal I, by Congress ex- to under Article sented Agreement, forfeited the during necessarily the Esola Clause over Section control clusive the arising dis- imposed claim laws Unit- sentence term Concomitantly, League the United Cf. Lake Ta- ed Save States. trict court. Regional Planning Agency, to have its right not hoe v. Tahoe gained the Congress, appear significant Columbia, states which District other It 91-538, subjected itself to enacting parties P.L. in accordance were terms, including those prisoners, federal with its transfer in committed offenses held effect, shall en- and the court (9th 1974), force cert. dismissing same with an order denied, ter U.S. (1975); Engdahl, prejudice.” Construc- L.Ed.2d Ques- Compacts: tion of Interstate A IV(e) order the Article to rebut Question, tionable Federal 51 Va.L.Rev. claim, argu- two appellee offered (1965). in its Court and ments brief filed in this oral ar- contention was raised at a third II. THE IN AS ALLEGED MERITS gument. THE PETITION First, appellee contends page As noted above hearing pursuant no in this transfers case were five was held and the court district dismissed prosequen of habeas ad to writs claim, treating the answer a mo- as issued honored dum a state court and 12(b)(6). tion to dismiss under F.R.Civ.P. comity, matter the Federal as circumstances, Under these our discus- of Prisons.18 Since the Bureau sion of the merits allega- must treat IY pursuant not made to Article was true, peti- tions in as since argued re it is given tioner hearing, was no trial or oth- provisions could relevant. not be medial opportunity prove allegations. er his Further, argument at oral took State express opinion We no whatever on could position that legal result which because, district in been used this case not have should reach on remand when it has a following on state arraignment record, complete more but sentencing consider prior to his charges necessary to comment on the contentions court, on Esola was released the district by respondent made on appeal bail, detainer Since he was on no bail.19 assistance the district court and lodged or could have been counsel on remand in view of our disa- prison. with the We think greement with several such arguments conten- fail these must on both tions, particularly light legisla- allegations they miscon these history tive of P.L. 91—538 applied nature broad ceive this record. misconstrue the meaning “detain- Agree that word used in the er” as argues that, Esola since he trans- ment. Danbury Freehold, ferred from Jersey, Danbury and returned to without It has been held that the Inter tried, having IV(e) requires Detainers, because it a dismissal of the indictment obviously remedial character[,] “is he is now serving a custodial sentence. should be liberally construed IV(e), Article 2A:159A-4(e), N.J.S.A. of problems favor whose were [those provides: to be sought West, State alleviated.]” indictment, N.J.Super. any 379, 384, not 758, “If trial is had 79 191 A.2d (App.Div.1966); or complaint contemplated People information v. Esposito, prior being

hereby (1960).20 to the re- Misc.2d 201 N.Y.S.2d original place impris- problems Those whose turned are addressed in Agreement pursuant V(e) prisoners onment Article here- are to with out indictment, of, standing such or charges information another from complaint any shall be of purpose provi- not 18. It is the of the Bureau policy Prisons canon is re- 20. This of statutory construction honor writs habeas ad Article IX, itself. peated absent prosequendum some cir- in exceptional 2A:159A-9, provides pertinent part: N.J.S.A. agreement Bureau of Prisons State- cumstances Policy shall construed so liberally “This 14A(i). ment No. 7500. See also Smith v. purposes.” purposes as to effectuate 381, n.13, 393 U.S. at 575. Hooey, I, are contained in Article set of the statute at note 7, forth supra. 19. This factual assertion is consistent with allegations contained in petition. elusive effecting means of a transfer brings sion which this case is into issue purpose prosecution on these alle- impact to minimize the adverse a for gations, IV(c), then Article eign requiring prosecution on pro rehabilitative prosecution within days arrival, grams of confining jurisdiction. IV(e), allowing and Article one needlessly When a shuttled rendition, would be meaningless. As one jurisdictions, two any between then court cogently in construing noted a dif- meaningful participation an ongoing ferent section of the “By program effectively treatment fore view, this law has wax teeth First, and is for two reasons. participa closed more legislative little than a requires exercise in physical presence and the futility.” People Esposito, supra, physical presence continuous prison of a N.Y.S.2d at 88. possible er is when multiple trips foreign jurisdiction are made. Second ly, psychological resulting holding strain Our that the uncertainty any from about provides future sen the exclusive means of transfer an tence decreases inmate’s it is desire to when available was foreshadowed advantage take opportun by institutional and is fully consistent with the recent ities.21 Hogan, case Grant v. 505 F.2d 1220 Grant, (3d 1974). prisoner, a federal well are documented problems These brought suit in a seeking federal court April At least since case. instant in the 21, directing an order that the federal ward of the first return the date naught” en “hold for a detainer repre aware Esola was Frank Jersey, New senting an untried indictment which had in- fully Jersey authorities that the lodged by a state. The básis for in- him on the 1970 prosecute tended the attack was a claimed denial of a February not until it was Yet dictment. speedy trial. This Court held later, that ab months 18, 1972, nearly 10 an sent unusual circumstances attack on Be- pronounced. sentence final preceded by a detainer must be a de February 1972 April 1971 tween pursuant mand for to Article trial III of Dan- interruptions of the were five there Agreement. holding In so we im precisely It is bury incarceration. pliedly recognized that this exhaustion type of situation requirement would solve most of the towe Were designed to eliminate. speedy ensuing problems from mul ma- hold, Jersey urges, that the holding tiple prosecutions.22 today Our ex- not the chinery of (1969), speedy I of trial clause 2A:159A-1, regarding purposes requires explicit sixth amendment that a State which Agreement. charge pending against supra. See note has defendant supra p. serving also, S.Rep.No.91-1356, good at' note sentence elsewhere make bring Congressman pur- such Poff faith defendant described effort to trial (116 Cong. poses as follows within a reasonable time. 4, 1970): 14000, May practical level, outstanding On a more Rec. an may ineligible detainer make a defendant agreement on detainers not af- “The does probation parole or for some the more any applicable law criminal case. fect the assignments prison. Also, desirable work prosecution that both is insure All it does if a defendant is uncertain as whether he desire, may, they if obtain and defendant jail will have to term he serve another is less timely prompt day on a in court their likely to motivation to have the become suc- advantages both sides are basis. cessfully rehabilitated. This latter consider- considerable. especially important ation is in view of the point view, prosecutor’s of From the purpose pe- that fact the basic of the entire pending pris- delay long in trial release of system prepare inmates nal is to its to reen- might by another State make convic- oner society law-abiding ter as citizens.” See impossible. might die or dis- Witnesses Cong.Rec. 116 also at 13999. appear become or unavailable. defendant, delay ef- such To the requirement 22. 505 F.2d at 1224. This ex- speedy fectively deny him a trial. The Su- Agreement pri- haustion of remedies under the Hooey, preme in Smith 393 held v. seeking speedy or to relief from a detainer on 575, 374, 21 L.Ed.2d 607 89 S.Ct. U.S. 838 confining institution that criminal the other side same merely

is charges from another were required is to use the coin: the state also outstanding that prisoner and it statute is available.23 if wanted in order stand on those trial claims that it next charges. Cong.Ree. (remarks 116 13999 have could not used the Rep. Kastenmeier).24 The Committee had previously this case because Esola Reports Judiciary of both the House outstanding bail on the released Judiciary Committee and the Senate indictment therefore warden at Rep. Committee follow Kastenmeier’s Danbury requested could not have been gener language almost verbatim.25 See following to “detain” Esola his release ally, Blackwell, Lawrence v. 298 F.Supp. argument on the federal sentence. This 708, 711 n.1 (N.D.Ga.1969); rejected premise, must be because Candelaria, States v. F.Supp. 131 order, that a is a hold detainer is incor (S.D.Cal.1955), quoting 805 Handbook on rect. Control, Chapter Interstate Crime V. “detainer,” it word as is used in is “a notification filed Further, definition of de detainer with prisoner the institution in which a scribed is above commensurate sentence, is serving advising that he is Agreement. purposes of the The uncer pending charges wanted to face criminal tainty resulting pending from jurisdiction.” in another Senate Re- charges less in a where no situation port Sess., Cong., 91st 2nd 3 91— demanding requested that has Cong. Admin.News, p. U.S.Code 4865. confining prisoner hold the fol This definition of a detainer from the lowing expiration of the term maximum Report support Senate finds in the other uncertainty than the created a re legislative history of the quest impending to be notified of purposes is consistent with the that, date. We note release the ex Agreement. represents tent that the detainer an un charge, Although legislative history appears tried criminal policy federal enactment of the United States Bureau voluminous, require Prisons perhaps demanding ju there apparently separate no risdiction to initiate opposition to it in ei- extradition Representatives proceedings ther the House of where the custo Senate, at the end Representative dy prison comes remarks prisoner upon and the Kastenmeier introduction term does not waive clear Bureau Policy bill make that he extradition. considered a de- Prisons simply a 7500.14A(a), (b) (d).26 tainer to be notice No. filed with Statement subject jurisdiction.” Cong.Ree. standing 13999 grounds is the another 116 of a order Kansas, Kansas, (May 1970). Fells v. the District 343 (D.Kan.1972), ap- F.Supp. and also 11, p. S.Rep.No.91-1356, supra 25. note pears Eighth in line with the view to be Judiciary Report of the House 4865. The Ciccone, Wingo v. F.2d 354 Circuit. See H.R.Rep.No.91-1018, identical. Committee is Lockhart, (8th 1974); Cooper v. Cir. (1970). Cong. Sess. 91st 2d (8th 1973). Alldredge, Cir. Cf. Waddell (3d 1973); 480 F.2d 1078 Willis v. Cir. Cic- Policy 26. Statement 7500.14A states that war- cone, 1974). (8th F.2d Cir. pending charges based on rants bewill treated detainers, (a). Ricketson, provides as United id. It Insofar detaining (7th 1974), given to the F.2d 367 is inconsistent with notice will be authorities decision, days prior to release and we decline to follow it on the advises authority detaining arrangements should facts of case. make with local authorities in the state where the custody institution purpose is located to take Rep. “For the stated: Kastenmeier time, appropriate (b). (d) id. § Section states legislation is a notification of a detainer of this prisoner sign if does not a waiver of filed with institution detaining sentence, extradition then “the advising authorities serving he that is wanted a immediately should be notified in order that pending charges in criminal to stand trial prior to the relator’s return to held is not a light of the fact that detain- sending jurisdiction. the only indicating a document that er is Ricketson, 367, 373 pending charges and a are there 1974) (dicta). We have con (7th Cir. impending to be notified of the of rejected and other contentions sidered date, argument the that state’s release respondent.28 the Jersey had no to file a detain- thereby simplified invoke the er and emphasize We no that we decide the procedures of transfer in this case than a cause that of more rejected. be must apparent is stated the failure action Ar- Jersey further contends Jersey comply to with the terms of New IV(e) Agreement, the of ticle fur and hence that by Eso- 2A:159A-4(e), not violated proceedings are the district court ther having Danbury without la’s return As was noted earlier in this required. the various continu- because tried been incomplete very there opinion,29 is good granted were for were ances which Court, before record cause. having been filed and records not respondent recognizes, As having appellee filed as an answer entirety in its must be read general denial of Esola’s mean to determine its correct in order allegations. is, therefore, It nec factual IV sets Article ing. essary to remand this case to District requirements the formal for trans forth development for of a full Court demanding Article fer to From record. the briefs filed in this minimizes the interference which also IV representations and from the from transfer. Thus Article results argument at oral for made counsel provides begin IV(c) trial must may dispute there with appellee, be no days after ar within alleged to facts were in the regard which demanding state unless a rival petition. habeas Since we have deter granted good for cause continuance that, under alleged mined the facts court, shown, open or his confined, appellant the relator good For being present. cause counsel be entitled to issuance of the writ would therefore, shown, beyond a continuance corpus, District Court IV(c) day of Article limit the 120 proper consider should case on does not show This record available. opportunity. at its earliest record granted good for continuance was that a judgment The the District Court open court.27 shown in cause will be vacated and the case remanded proceedings further with indict- consistent allegations, these Under opinion. Costs against taxed ap- subject to dismissal be would ment pellee. IV(e) if the Article under prejudice planning encourage careful regard factor additional they may decisions with make their IV(c) discourage Article extradition,” the use of the (d). question id. Finally, asserts the state continuance. Respondent allegation made no such in its Danbury might have authorities implied page answer and 7 of its brief that tempo- agree to the extended been reluctant granted. continuance was For this no such custody in this case. rary is involved meet, record, reason, we need not on this prop- question is that had to this The answer respondent IV(e) contention of Article custody temporary IV(a) request er Article IV(c). is modified Article made, the execu- intervention absent argues tive, V(a) that since have entitled New Jer- 28. New Article pretrial potential custody. incarceration reluctance sey costs such liable unduly V(h), harsh Danbury it would bar to authorities is no Article expense IV(e) of incarcera- imposition bear the sanctions. them to to force necessarily very assert, which, they response is that to this long supra, case. in this See note accompanying text. expedite the the scheme detainers, one cost as adds disposition The majority’s analysis GARTH, also fails Judge (concurring): Circuit jurisdictional provide basis for a claim agree I majority with the arising pre-1971 out of a violation of the question that a federal presented by is Agreement. This analytical failure is petition for habeas and that evident even if the violation occurred as the case must be remanded for further between the United States and another Nevertheless, proceedings. I believe it party state let alone party between two important my disagreement to note states, one of which was the United jurisdictional majority’s analysis States. (Part Majority I Opinion) of the Finally, theory by holds that the suffices advanced as claim majority explain does not alleging state which law “custody in violation of governs in the interpretation appli- . . . ... laws cation Agreement 2254(a); United courts of States.” 28 U.S.C. § party each of the states. Majority Opinion at 834-836. true, course, It is that we majority’s theory juris- I read the are presented only here stating: (De- with a violation diction as that on the date place which took 1970) after March cember 1971 and the United States’ only which involves the United Agreement enactment of the Interstate States Hence, Jersey. and New general as a on Detainers became effective rule jurisprudence, (March 9, expect- it could be 1971), United States all stat- majority go that the ed no utes of those states further than previously which had to decide whether the facts in by par- enacted such statutes give ticular case rise immediately were transformed into However, I believe that law of the United as Majority States. issue, the majority’s approach is too Opinion at 834. Instead, restricted. ju- While the majority’s analysis reaches issue, risdiction is at all possible circum- analysis the same result set forth may stances that arise should be con- particular below facts present sidered to validity determine the and the here, it specifies neither articulates nor proposed jurisdictional soundness of the the authority by which a state statute theory. enacting as a law of suddenly view, state can my become law of the a much sounder ap- when the propriate jurisdictional United States basis is afforded by enacted the United States but “on its reference to the Compact Clause of United own behalf and on the [the United Constitution, I, States’] States Art. behalf District of Columbia cl. 3. Accordingly § I believe that . . . .” Appendix majority’s jurisdictional 18 U.S.C.A. 2 the § analysis, (1975 Supp.).1 Nor majority’s does the while effective in resolving the issue in analysis question case, is, answer the most, of whether a secondary and a violation between jurisdictional less desirable basis for Eso- states, two one of which is not la and Unit for future may cases that arise. give ed rise States to federal ha After analyzing possible theories corpus jurisdiction. beas which federal corpus jurisdiction appear It would Agreement] theory (emphasis sup- tenable . . ..” Id. majority support plied). which the Nothing, however, appears could its thesis in the Ma- contract, jority one of Opinion inasmuch as the to indicate that the federal law itself contracting concept refers to “The states solemn- arises out of a contract the United ” ly agree that. . . Appendix party . 18 U.S.C.A. States with the other states. If in fact (1975 Supp.) (emphasis supplied). § over, underlying implicit authority that is the More- appears Majority Opinion, its terms in a I contract nevertheless am of the context, e., Agreement. i. “the Interstate shortcomings view that there . are . to such a hereby jurisdictional predicate, enacted into law and entered some of which are in- into jurisdic- Concurring Opinion. . . with all dicated in the text of legally joining tions in [enactment League to Save Lake Tahoe Agreement, of the ed States. in the context may lie Regional Planning Agency, Tahoe be 507 appropriate the most a theo- I find 1974), (9th denied, 517 upon congressional approv- F.2d cert. 420 ry predicated 1398, 974, Agreements Interstate or U.S. (1975). 95 S.Ct. 43 L.Ed. 654 “Com- al Pennsylvania v. The See Wheel analysis. pact Clause” ing Bridge Co., (13 & Belmont 54 U.S. requires congres- Compact Clause 518, How.) 565, (1851). 14 L.Ed. 249 agreements approval of between sional That federal law binding became on Jersey’s states. New enactment of the 9, 1971, New not on the March Agreement on Detainers the Interstate effective date of the United en States’ agreement an between and other the actment of but rather the Agree- enacted which have states 18, 1958, April the New effective date of such, by Congress approval As ment. Jersey’s Agreement. enactment of the Compact required. the Clause under In similar fashion this federal law is congressional approval Such binding party as to each state as of the pro- agreement on detainers was states’ particular on which that date state en 5, Act of in June vided advance joins the Agreement. tered into or 1934, 112(a). 4 U.S.C. See 1970 U.S. § Cong. Ad.News at 4866. Code In League Tahoe, supra, to Save Lake Ninth necessarily upon ap that Circuit held congressional It followed sanction of an agreement in Congress United States interstate proval (even transformed it though the United States did into a 1934 “law” of the Unit- party purposes state ed States for itself become under of 28 U.S.C. 1331(a) law, 1970),2 I until federal believe that a Agreement similar particular than law each conclusion must be rather reached state, respect Jersey’s is to to New governed, govern, party enactment of a congressionally approved agreement. Agreement.3 interpretation Bridge stated, As earlier Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri under majority’s 279-80, 275, analysis significant 79 S.Ct. certain Comm’n, questions 359 U.S. jurisdiction (1959); concerning Interstate 785, L.Ed.2d 804 3 and its effects Co., Inter contrast, v. Palisades are unanswered. “Compact Wrecking Inc. under a Comm’n, analysis, 57 N.J. Clause” Park answers such, (1971). As appear 13-14 to be evident. A.2d Under the judi “Compact analysis, construction and its Clause” it is immate- Agreement ‘title, authorities, a “federal rial whether the involves cial States is one of ” immunity’. jurisdictions. . the “transacting” privilege, right, By vir- Colburn, congressional tue of the River Comm’n action approving Delaware 1039, 1041, Agreement U.S. as enact- (1940) (emphasis supplied); subsequent ed each state L.Ed. 1934 is a of Interstate' Engdahl, such, “law” of the United Construction States. As see Questionable Ques A Federal Agreement violation of the Compacts: is a violation (1965). Accord tion, of a law of the 51 Va.L.Rev. United States within the purview congressional con of 28 I believe U.S.C. ingly, § 2254. Hence enactment of the since 1934 and not Jersey’s habeas sent which in Agreement the federal courts Interstate should created, been, is, rights were have federal available for violations Jersey’s enactment of where neither the re- transformed ceiving party jurisdiction a “law” of the Unit- into sending nor the Appendix (1975 may vary significantly See 18 Supp.). among U.S.C.A. the states which separately Agreement. have enacted the It is majority, recognize, as does I for this reason that I consider the need for a party enactment each interpretation uniform to be undoubtedly statutory identical significant, mandatory. and indeed Nevertheless, gloss may terms. language imparted to identical the courts is available in the federal courts. We jurisdiction was or is the United party however, company, part respective States. routes chosen to reach this conclusion. “Compact I believe Clause” appear It would the majority’s analysis provides breadth begin route must either with the United corpus availability courts and one end of trans- uniformity interpre the concomitant fer or terminate with United States Uniformity interpretation tation. view, my at the other end. the ma- Agreement necessary as the deals with concerns; jority’s route narrow indeed, is too and limited than local the more may deny as it forum federal for habe- provisions the remedial corpus justi- as petitioners relief with only in allowing receiving relief the by grievances arising fiable out of actions even for violations jurisdiction, occurring by states where the United States is not sending jurisdiction, encompasses party. Certainly this would beyond be so un- activities the and affects control der the majority’s theory pre-1971 where majority’s single analy state.4 The of a matters are in I hope issue. seriously jeopardizes that the attainment sis in time this will depart from interpretation. the a uniform of such narrow by one-lane route under constructed the possibility majority’s exists majority to jurisdiction, jurisdic- that traverse broader theory Agree tional highway I have may interpreted which outlined. ment be the same two, receiving potentially however, obliged, I am to make still different, being of law: one standards respect another with observation to the all, (and if only standard then Majority Opinion. The majority, by its 9, 1971), March after where the United statement, own has decided no more sending jurisdiction, is the thus than “. a cause . of action is Agree content to the giving a “federal” apparent stated failure of New ment, being a and the other state stan Jersey to comply terms of the sending jurisdiction where the dard is a Agreement, pro and hence that state, Agreement permitting thus to ceedings in the district are re interpreted according to the law of Opinion Majority quired.” at 839. In one the two states. In contrast deed, improvident it would be for us to view, majority’s “Compact Clause” decide otherwise since reason of the require that analysis would the courts of district petition, court’s dismissal of the jurisdictions (38 several plus states the record before us is silent. Taking States) the United which have enacted word, majority I thus disre interpret Agreement gard gratuitous advisory any as and dis according single to a standard —a federal Majority Opinion cussion 3, supra. note one. See any treats with of the merits peti I tion. majority petition, have reached The merits of Esola’s having before same conclusion as to be pur assumed true for us, jurisdiction review,5 poses appellate is that habeas we should Although jurisdiction the courts of sending jurisdiction, each occurs in such as which has enacted the are comply to inter- III(c) failure of the warden to with Art. pret apply respective statutes, their own notifying it prisoner of the detainer and of only receiving party in the courts of the disposi- a final (here Jersey) remedies are charges, Agreement anticipates tion of the noncompliance Agree- available for with the that relief lies courts of the receiv- remedy provided Agree- ment. As the ing jurisdiction. People Esposito, noncompliance ment for acts of is dismissal of (Cty.Ct.1960); Misc.2d 201 N.Y.S.2d 83 prejudice”, West, N.J.Super. 379, see the indictment “with State v. follows that 191 A.2d (App.Div.1963). State, King any see allegations But has been Md.App. (1969) (No 249 A.2d presented violated are to be to and resolved provided give sanction for warden’s failure to only the courts of the where the required notice under an Intrastate pending. Agree- indictment See Interstate containing language Detainer Act similar Detainers, V(c); Ap- ment on Art. 18 U.S.C.A. Detainers). the Interstate pendix (1975 Supp.); 2A:159A-5(c). Thus, though Majority Opinion even violation of the at 833. 5. See district court remand to after defer of fact questions of all its resolution course, than, jurisdic- law, other

tion. BOWERS, of Local Trustee

John Longshoremen’s 1575, International al.,

Association, AFL-CIO, et Plain-

tiffs-Appellants, al., et G. MORENO

Eusebio

Defendants-Appellees. 75-1160.

No. Appeals, United States Markson, Martin York City, Juan First Circuit. Doval, Piedras, R., Seymour F. Rio P. M. 6, 1975. June Submitted Waldman, Waldman, Waldman & Doval, and Francis City, York Colorado Aug. Decided Carlo, Rey, R., Hato P. on brief for appellants. COFFIN, Judge,

Before Chief McEN- CAMPBELL, Judges. TEE and Circuit COFFIN, Judge. Chief interlocutory appeal, an This is having matter been certified to us court under 28 the district U.S.C. 1292(b). jurisdic- are still issues tional, we they were when decided Casal, Inc., Ulpiano Bowers v. 1968), (1st involving the same litigation. description

For a of the context and improve major allegations, we cannot of the district the statement court: of an Agree- case arises out “This Declaration of ment and Trust made the International Longshore- between Association, and on behalf of men’s unions, and other ILA local Local 1575 shipping stevedoring and certain Pursuant terms of employers. employer each the Trust money required pay certain sums of Welfare Fund. to the ILA—PRSSA general is a fund Fund The Welfare

Case Details

Case Name: United States of America Ex Rel. Frank Esola, 53517 v. Ronald M. Groomes, Superintendent

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Date Published: Aug 5, 1975

Citation: 520 F.2d 830

Docket Number: 74-2197

Court Abbreviation: 3rd Cir.