PSM-189 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-4668
___________
RUDY STANKO,
Appellant
v.
BARACK OBAMA; WARDEN DAVID EBBERT
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 09-cv-01911)
District Judge: Honorable James F. McClure, Jr.
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 17, 2010
Before: FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR. and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
Opinion filed: September 21, 2010
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
Rudy Stanko, a federal prisoner, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. He complained of cruel and
unusual punishment and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment for pursuing his
administrative remedies and otherwise seeking legal relief. In particular, he claimed that
he was thrown in the “hole” and subjected to “diesel therapy” (a punishment he defined as
being transported in shackles and a belly-chain around the country with stops in the
“holes” of various federal prison facilities). He also alleged various irregularities and due
process violations relating to a hearing at which he was found guilty of filing fraudulently
notarized liens (which he characterized as grievances). As a result of the hearing, he lost
commissary, visiting, and telephone privileges, and he received additional time (180 days)
in the “hole” and 27 days in prison.1
Stanko asked the District Court to enjoin prison officials from putting him in the
“hole” for more than 30 days and from subjecting him to “diesel therapy.” He also sought
declarations that prison officials violated various provisions of the Constitution by,
among other things, punishing him with 27 days in jail and other penalties for seeking
administrative relief.
The District Court dismissed the petition, ruling that Stanko’s claims were not
appropriately brought in habeas because he did not challenge the fact or duration of his
confinement. The District Court recognized that Stanko complained about the additional
27 days of imprisonment, but noted that Stanko did not ask the court to “delete” the
sentence. The dismissal was without prejudice to Stanko’s efforts to pursue his claims in
1
Although we do not find facts on appeal, we note that it appears from documents
submitted to us (but not presented to the District Court) that Stanko challenges the loss of
27 days of good conduct time.
2
an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Stanko appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253.
Our review of the District Court’s legal conclusions is plenary. See Rios v. Wiley, 201
F.3d 257, 262 (3d Cir. 2000). Upon review, we will affirm in part and vacate in part the
District Court’s judgment.
We will affirm the District Court’s decision insofar as it dismissed Stanko’s
challenge to the conditions of his confinement because, as the District Court reasoned,
Stanko could not present such claims in his habeas petition. However, we will vacate the
District Court’s judgment to the extent that it dismissed Stanko’s habeas claims.
In addition to raising prison condition claims, Stanko sought to put in question the
validity of the duration of his confinement, namely the additional 27 days of
imprisonment to which he became subject after his hearing. As the District Court noted,
Stanko does not clearly ask the District Court to invalidate the sentence (in the sense that
he did not ask for an immediate release). However, his case falls within the edict of
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973), that is “when a state prisoner is
challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks
is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that
imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.”
Since Preiser, the Supreme Court has stated the rule more broadly. See, e.g.,
Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005) (stating more simply that a prisoner “cannot
3
use a § 1983 action to challenge ‘the fact or duration of his confinement’”). In Edwards
v. Balisok, the Supreme Court held that a prisoner’s success in a due process challenge to
the procedures used during a prison disciplinary hearing that resulted in his loss of 30
days’ good-time credit would necessarily imply the invalidity of the penalty he received.
See 520 U.S. 641, 646-47 (1997). In that case, the prisoner argued that he was denied the
opportunity to put on a defense and that he was tried by an impartial arbiter. See id. In
addition to monetary damages and prospective injunctive relief, he sought a declaration
that the procedures used by prison officials at his hearing violated due process. See id. at
644. The Supreme Court held that the prisoner did not present a claim that was
cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See id. at 648.
Stanko’s case, to the extent that he sought a declaration that his sentence of 27
days in jail violated his constitutional rights, is similar to Balisok. He alleged due process
violations; for instance, he claimed a sham trial in which he was not permitted to face his
accusers. Among other things, like Balisok, he sought a declaration that the respondents
violated his right to due process during the disciplinary proceedings. Also, Stanko sought
a declaration that prison officials violated other provisions of the Constitution; for
example, that they conducted a trial in violation of the protection against a bill of
attainder. Although ultimately he may not succeed on his bill of attainder claim or his
4
other claims,2 his claims that challenge the disciplinary proceeding and the resulting
lengthened prison sentence sound in habeas. Accordingly, the District Court should have
considered them. For this reason, we will vacate the District Court’s judgment in part.
We remand this matter to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
2
Although we express no opinion on the merits of Stanko’s claims, we note that he
may merely have been punished in ordinary prison disciplinary proceedings after having
filed improper liens against prison officials.
5