Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
10-27-2006
In Re: Almahdi v. Williamson
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-3908
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Almahdi v. Williamson" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 282.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/282
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
ALD-17 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
NO. 06-3908
________________
IN RE: JAMALUD-DIN ALMAHDI,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(Related to M.D. Pa. No. 05-cv-01381)
____________________________________
Submitted Under Rule 21, Fed. R. App. Pro.
October 13, 2006
BEFORE: SLOVITER, McKEE and FISHER, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed: October 27, 2006)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Jamalud-din Almahdi, a prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution at
Allenwood in White Deer, Pennsylvania, petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus
ordering the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to
immediately consider a motion that he claims to have filed in July 2006. For the reasons
stated below, we will deny Almahdi’s mandamus petition.
In 2005, Almahdi filed a habeas corpus petition in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania challenging the validity of a regulation limiting
the authority of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to release prisoners to transitional
facilities such as community corrections centers (“CCCs”). Because the challenged
regulation bars the BOP from transferring a prisoner to such a facility except “during the
last ten percent of the prison sentence being served, not to exceed six months,” 28 C.F.R.
§ 570.21, Almahdi alleged in his habeas petition that the rule denied him the opportunity
to obtain a transfer to a CCC earlier than November 2006, six months before the projected
termination of his sentence. While Almahdi’s habeas case was pending, this Court
decided Woodall v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2005), which
invalidated the BOP regulation on the grounds that it was not consistent with Congress’
mandate that prison officials consider a broad range of statutory factors in determining
the proper placement of federal prisoners. See id. at 245-46 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)).
In spite of Woodall’s tacit acceptance of some of the legal arguments raised in Almahdi’s
habeas petition, the District Court denied Almahdi relief because prison officials had not
yet rendered a final decision as to his CCC placement and because the District Court
trusted that the “BOP will follow [Woodall] . . . and consider all relevant factors in
determining [Almahdi’s] pre-release preparation date,” In re Almahdi, No. 05-cv-01381,
slip op. at 5 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 6, 2006). The BOP thereafter informed Almahdi of its
decision to transfer him to a CCC on November 7, 2006. Almahdi now petitions this
2
Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Middle District of Pennsylvania to act upon a
“letter motion” that he purportedly filed with the District Court in July 2006 requesting
judicial review of the BOP’s final decision.
We have original jurisdiction over a petition for a writ of mandamus that seeks “to
confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it
to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.” Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90,
95 (1967) (quoting Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn., 319 U.S. 21, 26 (1943)). A writ of
mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will issue only where there is no other remedy
available to the petitioner and the petitioner’s right to mandamus relief is clear and
indisputable. See In re Pressman-Gutman Co., Inc., 459 F.3d 383, 398-99 (3d Cir. 2006).
The letter that Almahdi claims he sent to the District Court, which he submitted along
with his mandamus petition, contains an unsupported allegation that the BOP did not
calculate his release date based on consideration of all relevant factors, as is required after
our decision in Woodall. However, Almahdi has provided no evidence that he filed the
letter and our inquiries to the District Court have yielded no indication that he did so.
Therefore, the District Court can hardly be faulted for failing to act upon it, and issuance
of a writ of mandamus is unwarranted under the circumstances.
For the foregoing reasons, we will deny Almahdi’s petition. Almahdi’s motion to
expedite the petition is denied.
3