Grandison v. United States ( 1998 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6758
ANTHONY GRANDISON; STEVEN H. OKEN; JOHN BOOTH-
EL; WESLEY EUGENE BAKER, et al., Plaintiffs,
Prisoners of the Maryland Correctional Adjust-
ment Center, under a sentence of death, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WILLIAM J. CLINTON,
President, United States of America; JANET
RENO, Attorney General of the United States of
America; LYNNE ANN BATTAGLIA, United States
Attorney for Maryland; EUGENE M. NUTH, Warden,
Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center, et
al., Defendants, sued in their official
capacities,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA-
97-1396-S)
Submitted: June 30, 1998 Decided: August 7, 1998
Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Grandison, Steven H. Oken, John Booth-El, Wesley Eugene
Baker, Appellants Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States
Attorney, Andrea L. Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Appellants, Maryland inmates under death sentences, appeal the
district court’s order dismissing this action seeking a declaratory
judgment and injunctive relief and challenging the constitutional-
ity of Chapter 154 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. Each Appellant
has, or will have, pending in the district court a 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) petition. Their respective en-
titlement to habeas corpus relief is the underlying case or contro-
versy. A judgment in the subject action “would not resolve the
entire case or controversy as to any one of them, but would merely
determine a collateral legal issue governing certain aspects of
their pending or future suits.” Calderon v. Ashmus, 118 S.Ct. 1694,
1699 (1998). The Supreme Court in Calderon ruled that such an
action is not a justiciable case under U.S. Const. art III. See id.
at 1698-99.
We accordingly grant in forma pauperis status and affirm. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3