Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00618/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00618-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Craig Apker
Respondent
James Ray Willis
Petitioner

Document Text:

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

James Ray Willis, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Craig Apker, 

Respondent.

No. CV-12-00618-TUC-JGZ

ORDER 

On August 12, 2013, Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Ferraro issued a Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 17) in which he recommended that Petitioner’s § 2241 

Petition be granted in part. On August 26, 2013, Respondent filed an Objection to the 

Report and Recommendation; Petitioner timely responded. (Docs. 18, 19.) The Court 

adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.1

ANALYSIS 

 The Court adopts the factual findings of the Magistrate Judge. In the pending 

R&R, the Magistrate Judge concluded that, pursuant to Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d 1042, 

1045 (9th Cir. 2012), the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) lacks authority to impose a payment 

schedule on Petitioner through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (“IFRP”) 

because Petitioner’s restitution order does not set forth a schedule of payments. 

Respondent objects to the R&R on the grounds that it is legally inconsistent. 

 

1 The Court reviews de novo the objected to portions of the Report and Recommendation. 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court reviews for clear error the unobjected 

to portions of the Report and Recommendation. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 

739 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). 

Case 4:12-cv-00618-JGZ Document 20 Filed 09/30/14 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

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 

Specifically, Respondent contends that the Magistrate’s finding that Petitioner’s 

restitution order is not proper or valid is inconsistent with the Magistrate’s finding that 

Petitioner is not challenging the legal validity of that order. 

 The Magistrate Judge did not find that Petitioner’s restitution order is not proper 

or valid. Petitioner did not challenge the validity of his restitution order, but rather the 

execution of that order: Petitioner alleged that the BOP had impermissibly collected 

money from his account through the IFRP and requested an order directing BOP to place 

Petitioner in “IFRP Exempt” status. (Doc. 1, pgs. 4, 9.) The Magistrate Judge found that 

“BOP is foreclosed by the court’s interpretation of the [Mandatory Victims Restitution 

Act] in Ward from imposing a payment schedule on Petitioner through the IFRP.” (Doc. 

17, pg. 5.) This finding is consistent with the relief sought by the Petitioner in his § 2241 

Petition. The Magistrate Judge explicitly stated that the court was considering only 

Petitioner’s argument regarding BOP enforcement of his restitution order. (Doc. 17, pg. 

5.) 

The Magistrate Judge’s finding comports with the law of this Circuit. Petitioner’s 

restitution order was issued in the Fifth Circuit, which has not adopted Ward’s holding 

that a restitution order that fails to set forth a payment schedule impermissibly delegates 

judicial authority to the BOP in violation of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act 

(“MVRA”). See, e.g., Hickman v. Keffer, 498 Fed. Appx. 375, 379 (5th Cir. 2012). In the 

Fifth Circuit, Petitioner’s restitution order is valid and if Petitioner were housed in a 

facility located in the Fifth Circuit, the BOP could impose a payment schedule on 

Petitioner through the IFRP. However, Petitioner is currently housed at the United States 

Penitentiary in Tucson, Arizona, which is located within the Ninth Circuit. When the 

BOP operates in the Ninth Circuit, it is subject to review under the law of the circuit. 

(Doc. 17, pg. 6.) In the Ninth Circuit, “the BOP lacks the authority to collect restitution 

payments from the petitioner” unless the petitioner’s restitution order sets forth a 

payment schedule. Ward, 678 F.3d at 1052. This is true regardless of whether the 

underlying restitution order is valid in the circuit in which it was issued. Contrary to 

Case 4:12-cv-00618-JGZ Document 20 Filed 09/30/14 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

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 

Respondent’s assertion, the invalidity of the restitution order is not a condition precedent 

to the relief Petitioner seeks. The Court recognizes that this Circuit split makes BOP’s 

efforts to collect on restitution orders inconsistent, but it is bound by the law of this 

Circuit. 

The Court will modify the remedy recommended by the Magistrate Judge in 

granting the Petition. The Magistrate Judge concluded that the appropriate remedy for 

Petitioner is that he be placed on “IFRP Exempt” status “until a proper restitution 

schedule has been set by the sentencing court.” (Doc. 17, pg. 7.) Respondent argues 

that it is not possible for a “proper restitution schedule” to be set in Petitioner’s case 

because Petitioner has no legal basis to challenge the restitution component of his 

sentence in the Western District of Texas, and any opportunity to appeal that order has 

expired. The Court agrees with Respondent that there appears to be no likelihood that 

Petitioner’s restitution schedule will be amended to include a payment schedule. The 

Court also agrees with Respondent that this Court cannot direct the BOP to place 

Petitioner on IFRP status: the Court is without the legal authority to direct the BOP in the 

administration of inmate payments. However, the Magistrate’s conclusion that the BOP 

lacks authority to impose a payment schedule for Petitioner under the IFRP is nonetheless 

legally valid pursuant to Ward. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the appropriate 

remedy is an Order prohibiting Respondents from collecting restitution payments from 

Petitioner’s accounts so long as he is housed in this Circuit. 

CONCLUSION 

Accordingly, after an independent review, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 17) is ADOPTED IN PART and REJECTED IN PART. 

The R&R is ADOPTED insofar as it GRANTS IN PART the Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus but DENIES in part the Petition’s request for reimbursement for past 

payments made through IFRP. (Doc. 1.) 

The R&R is REJECTED insofar as it directs Respondents to place Petitioner on 

IFRP Exempt status until a proper restitution schedule has been set by the sentencing 

Case 4:12-cv-00618-JGZ Document 20 Filed 09/30/14 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

court. IT IS ORDERED THAT Respondents are prohibited from collecting restitution 

payments from Petitioner’s accounts so long as he is housed in this Circuit. 

 Dated this 30th day of September, 2014. 

Case 4:12-cv-00618-JGZ Document 20 Filed 09/30/14 Page 4 of 4