Opinion
Civil Action No. 20-112
07-24-2020
JAMES R. CAMP, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN ORLANDO HARPER, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff's civil rights claim be dismissed without prejudice and that his claim regarding the alleged failure to extradite be dismissed as moot.
II. Report
Plaintiff James R. Camp initiated this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by filing a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on January 23, 2020. After he submitted the appropriate documentation, his motion was granted, and the Complaint was filed on April 27, 2020.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he was being improperly detained at the Allegheny County Jail despite the fact that he had signed the necessary paperwork to be extradited to the State of Florida regarding charges pending against him in that jurisdiction. He also claims that after he filed a "complaint" (which may have been a formal grievance) with jail personnel on December 3, 2019, he was retaliated against by being placed in lockdown for 23 hours a day. As relief, he seeks enforcement of the extradition and monetary damages.
A Standing Practice Order was entered on May 7, 2020 (ECF No. 11) that directed Plaintiff to file the required service documents so that the Court could order service by the United States Marshal. He did not do so and therefore, service has not been made.
On July 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed a "Motion Habeas Corpus" (ECF No. 13) In this motion, Plaintiff indicated that on May 24, 2020, he was extradited to Florida where he is now being detained. However, he alleges, both Pennsylvania and Florida "lost" the ability to extradite him because it did not take place until more than seven months after he signed the extradition documents. He requested habeas corpus relief in the form of release from custody, claiming that the Court should dismiss all charges pending against him in both Pennsylvania and Florida. This motion was dismissed without prejudice to proceed in the judicial district in which he is presently detained. Release from custody is not available as a form of relief in a § 1983 claim and this is not a habeas corpus action.
With respect to proceedings in forma pauperis, Section 1915 provides that: "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that ... the action ... fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). For the reasons that follow, it is recommended that the Complaint be dismissed.
Plaintiff's Complaint arises in part from his contention that defendants wrongfully failed to extradite him to Florida. As a remedy, he sought to be extradited. According to his latest submission, however, he was extradited to Florida in May of 2020. Thus, to the extent that his Complaint is based upon the alleged failure to extradite him, it is now moot. "When it is no longer possible for this court to grant the relief requested, a case is moot and this court lacks jurisdiction to hear it." Bohannon v. Capozza, 2019 WL 367037, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 30, 2019) (citation omitted).
If Plaintiff now wishes to challenge his extradition, he must seek habeas corpus relief. See Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 289 (1978) (a prisoner may raise a very limited challenge to extradition through a federal habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241). Any such petition must be filed in Florida, where he is currently detained. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442-43 (2004) (a district court's jurisdiction to entertain a petition under § 2241 is territorially limited and extends only to persons detained and custodial officials acting within the boundaries of that district). Plaintiff states that he is being held in a facility in Ft. Lauderdale, which is within the Southern District of Florida. Therefore, to the extent that Plaintiff wishes to challenge his extradition or the fact that he is currently being detained, he must do so by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
To the extent that Plaintiff is asserting a civil rights claim based upon his contention that he was subjected to retaliation at the Allegheny County Jail for complaining about not being extradited, his factual allegations are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). In the event that he wishes to maintain such a claim, he must sufficiently allege its factual basis, including to whom his complaints were made, the manner and substance of his complaint, whether it represented a formal grievance, whether he exhausted his administrative remedies and the identity of the person or persons who retaliated against him by moving him to the cell in which he was locked down. Moreover, he must set forth forms of relief which are available in a § 1983 action, which does not include release from custody. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1975) (when a prisoner seeks "immediate release or a speedier release from [his] imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.")
III. Conclusion
For the reasons cited above, it is recommended that the civil rights claim in Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend and that his claim regarding the alleged failure to extradite be dismissed as moot. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks habeas corpus relief, he must pursue that action in the jurisdiction in which he is incarcerated.
Litigants who seek to challenge this Report and Recommendation must seek review by the district judge by filing objections by August 10, 2020. Failure to file timely objections will waive the right of appeal.
s/Patricia L. Dodge
PATRICIA L. DODGE
United States Magistrate Judge Dated: July 24, 2020 cc: James R. Camp
54718
Joseph V. Conte Facility
P.O. Box 407016
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33340