2012 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

11-14-2012 

# M a r k J or d a n v

.;R onnie H olt

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 12-2992

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2012

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2012 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" M a rk J or d a n v

.;R onnie H o lt " (2012). 2012 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 169. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2012/169BLD
- 021 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 12

- 2992

___________ MARK JORDAN,

Appellant v. WARDEN RONNIE HOLT

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Co urt for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 1

- 12

- cv - 00883 ) District Judge: Honorable William W. Caldwell

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuan t to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 October 25, 2012 Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN and GREENAWAY, JR. , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : November 14, 2012 )

_________ OPINION

_________ PER CURIAM
M ark Jordan, a feder al prisoner proceeding pro se , appeals from the District Court’s order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. There being no substantial question presented on app eal, we will summarily affirm.2 I. Jordan was convicted of two different crimes in separate jurisdictions. He was ordered to pay restitution in both cases, and in one case he was o rdered to pay a fine. 1 Neither sentencing court implemented a payment schedule, ordering instead that he mak e payment immediately. (Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 4, 5.) Jordan agreed to participate in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (“IFRP”), 28 C.F.R. § 545.11, though he claims he did so “under duress and threat of . . .
sanctions. ” (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 7 .) He made h is first payment in March 2012 , with the next payment scheduled for June. He filed his § 2241 petit ion in May , claiming that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) was improperly forcing him to participate in the IFRP , and that he did not intend to make the June p ayment

. He stated that he would rather bear the “sanctions” of non

- participation . ( Id

. ) Jordan argued that the BOP did not have statutory autho rity to implement the IFRP, and that the IFRP violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. ( Id. ¶¶ 8, 9.) He requested injunctive relief prohibiting the BOP from forcing him to participate in the IFRP, or from otherwise scheduling and making court

ordered payments. ( Id. ¶ 12.) The District Court dismissed the petition pursuant to Rules 1(b) and 4 of the Ru les Governing Section 2254 Cases, because it “plainly appear[ed]” that Jordan “was not entitled to relief . . . .” (Dkt. No. 6, p. 1.) The District Court noted that he voluntarily

1 Jordan m ust pa y a total of $12,363.00.3

entered the IFRP, and could also voluntarily withdraw. Though withdrawal from the
IFRP would “impact Jor dan’s access to privileges,” the District Court determined that it would not violate any of his constitutional rights. (Dkt. No. 6, p. 3.) Jordan’s subsequent
motion for reconsi deration was denied, (Dkt. No. 12), and he tim ely appealed (Dkt. No. 14).
II. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Jordan’s challenge to the BOP’s execution of his sentence was properly brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. McGee v. Martinez , 627 F.3d 933, 937 (3d Cir. 2010). We revi ew a district court’s denial of a habeas petition de novo, exercising plenary review over its legal conclusions and applying a clearly erroneous standard to its findings of fact. O’Donald v. Johns , 402
F.3 d 172, 173 n.1 (3d Cir. 2005.) We may summarily a ffirm the decision of the District Court if no substantial question is presented on appeal. 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. The IFRP is lawful and p articipation in it is strictly voluntary

. James v. Quinlan , 866 F.2d 627, 631 (3d Cir. 1989); United St ates v. Boyd , 608 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 2010) . Prisoners are not entitled, constitutionally or otherwise, “to any of the benefits agreeing to participate in the IFRP would provide, such as a work detail outside the prison perimeter, a higher commissary spending limit, a release gratuity, or pay beyond the maintenance pay level.” United States v. Lemoine , 546 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2008). The consequences of choosing not to participate in the IFRP do not amount to constitutional violations. See id.4

Jordan concedes that he has no c onstitutional claims. (Arg. in Supp. of Appeal, p. 5.) He argues that the BOP does not have statutory au thority to implement the IFRP. ( Id. ) However, as we have already pointed out, participation in the IFRP is voluntar y. The BOP only “implements” the IFRP after a prisoner has chosen to participate in it. Jordan cannot be heard to complain about the “unlawful action of scheduling [his] restitution payments” after he elected participation in the IFRP. ( Id. p. 7.) We t herefore agree with the District Court that Jordan’s § 2241 petition was meritless. 2
III. There being no substantial question presented on appeal, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court. 3 d Cir. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

2 We also agree with the District Court’s determination that the Fair Debt Collection Practices A ct does not apply to the IFRP. (Dkt. No. 6, p. 4 n.4 (citing Geiger v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons , 487 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1159

- 60 (C.D. C al. 2007).)