Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06396/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06396-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY G. KIZZEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. MILLIGAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:04-cv-06396 OWW LJO P

MODIFICATION TO ORDER

ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 15)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

Plaintiff Anthony G. Kizzee (“Plaintiff”) is a federal

prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant

to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The matter was referred to a

United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On November 10, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings

and Recommendations herein which was served on Plaintiff and

which contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30)

days. On December 12, 2005, Plaintiff filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

Case 1:04-cv-06396-OWW -LJO Document 17 Filed 01/05/06 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Title 28

C.F.R. § 545.11(a)(1)-(5) specifically authorizes the Bureau of

Prisons Unit Staff to help an inmate develop a financial plan,

when an inmate has a financial obligation, and monitor the

inmate’s progress in meeting that obligation. Subsection (a)(3)

makes a court-ordered fine a third priority obligation. 

Under § 545.11(b) the inmate is responsible for making

satisfactory progress in meeting his/her financial responsibility

plan and for providing documentation of these payments to unit

staff. Under § 545.11(b)(1) “ordinarily, the minimum payment for

non-UNICOR and UNICOR grade 5 inmates will be $25.00 per quarter. 

This minimum payment may exceed $25.00, taking into consideration

the inmate’s specific obligations, institution resources, and

community resources. Under subsection (b)(2) inmates assigned in

grades 1 through 4 in UNICOR ordinarily will be expected to allot

not less than 50% of their monthly pay to the payment process. 

Any allocation which is less than the 50% minimum must be

approved by the Unit Manager. 

Under § 545.11(d) refusal by an inmate to participate in the

financial responsibility program or to comply with the provisions

of his financial plan result in a variety of sanctions including

not receiving any furlough; not receiving performance pay above

the maintenance pay level or bonus pay or vacation pay; not being

assigned to a work detail outside the secure perimeter of the

facility; not being placed in UNICOR or, if assigned to UNICOR,

Case 1:04-cv-06396-OWW -LJO Document 17 Filed 01/05/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

being removed from UNICOR and, once removed, may not be placed on

a UNICOR waiting list for six months. Other sanctions that can

be imposed include a monthly commissary spending limitation;

quartering the inmate in the lowest housing status; the inmate

will not be placed in a community based program; the inmate will

not receive a release gratuity unless approved by the Warden; and

the inmate will not receive an incentive for participation in

residential drug treatment programs. 

It is important to distinguish a schedule of payments under

the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A-3664,

which is a non-delegable duty of the District court to make a

schedule for payment of restitution while a Defendant was in

prison, from scheduling payment of a fine. In Montagno-Figueroa

v. Crabtree, 162 F.3d 548, 550 (9th Cir. 1998) the Ninth Circuit

expressly holds that a District Court can delegate scheduling of

the payment of fines to the Bureau of Prisons. See United States

v. Gunning, 401 F.3d 1145, 1150 (9th Cir. 2005) (distinguishing

restitution payments under the MVRA as non-delegable, from fine

payments which are delegable to the BOP); see also, citing the

principle with approval, United States v. Stephens, 424 F.3d 876,

881, fn.2 (9th Cir. 2005).

There is no error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis which

recognizes the well-established authority of the Bureau of

Prisons to impose sanctions against a prisoner for failure to

participate and perform in a financial program relative to

payment of a court-ordered fine. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed November 10,

Case 1:04-cv-06396-OWW -LJO Document 17 Filed 01/05/06 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

2005, are ADOPTED IN FULL; and 

2. This action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for

Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted pursuant to Bivens. 

DATED: January 4, 2006.

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

_____________________________

 Oliver W. Wanger

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

dlp/kizzee v. milligan order

Case 1:04-cv-06396-OWW -LJO Document 17 Filed 01/05/06 Page 4 of 4