Source: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arizona/azdce/4:2012cv00618/721889/20
Timestamp: 2018-01-21 11:06:28
Document Index: 374108563

Matched Legal Cases: ['ART 17', 'ART 17', '§ 2241', '§ 636', '§ 2241', 'ART. 24']

*ORDER ADOPTING IN PART and REJECTING IN PART 17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for Willis v. Apker :: Justia Dockets & Filings
Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit Arizona Arizona District Court Willis v. Apker Filing 20
Willis v. Apker
*ORDER ADOPTING IN PART and REJECTING IN PART 17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED insofar as it GRANTS IN PART the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus but DENIES in part the Petitions request for reimbursement for past payments made through 1 IFRP. The Report and Recommendation 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 court. IT IS ORDERED THAT Respondents are prohibited from collecting restitution payments from Petitioners accounts so long as he is housed in this Circuit. Signed by Judge Jennifer G Zipps on 09/30/14. (BAC) *Modified to attach corrected PDF; NEF regenerated on 10/01/2014 (APJ) (SSU).
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Petitioner, 10 11 12 No. CV-12-00618-TUC-JGZ James Ray Willis, ORDER v. Craig Apker, Respondent. 13 14 On August 12, 2013, Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Ferraro issued a Report and 15 Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 17) in which he recommended that Petitioner’s § 2241 16 Petition be granted in part. On August 26, 2013, Respondent filed an Objection to the 17 Report and Recommendation; Petitioner timely responded. (Docs. 18, 19.) The Court 18 adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.1 ANALYSIS 19 20 The Court adopts the factual findings of the Magistrate Judge. In the pending 21 R&R, the Magistrate Judge concluded that, pursuant to Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d 1042, 22 1045 (9th Cir. 2012), the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) lacks authority to impose a payment 23 schedule on Petitioner through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (“IFRP”) 24 because Petitioner’s restitution order does not set forth a schedule of payments. 25 Respondent objects to the R&R on the grounds that it is legally inconsistent. 26 27 28 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). 1 Specifically, Respondent contends that the Magistrate’s finding that Petitioner’s 2 restitution order is not proper or valid is inconsistent with the Magistrate’s finding that 3 Petitioner is not challenging the legal validity of that order. 4 The Magistrate Judge did not find that Petitioner’s restitution order is not proper 5 or valid. Petitioner did not challenge the validity of his restitution order, but rather the 6 execution of that order: Petitioner alleged that the BOP had impermissibly collected 7 money from his account through the IFRP and requested an order directing BOP to place 8 Petitioner in “IFRP Exempt” status. (Doc. 1, pgs. 4, 9.) The Magistrate Judge found that 9 “BOP is foreclosed by the court’s interpretation of the [Mandatory Victims Restitution 10 Act] in Ward from imposing a payment schedule on Petitioner through the IFRP.” (Doc. 11 17, pg. 5.) This finding is consistent with the relief sought by the Petitioner in his § 2241 12 Petition. The Magistrate Judge explicitly stated that the court was considering only 13 Petitioner’s argument regarding BOP enforcement of his restitution order. (Doc. 17, pg. 14 5.) 15 The Magistrate Judge’s finding comports with the law of this Circuit. Petitioner’s 16 restitution order was issued in the Fifth Circuit, which has not adopted Ward’s holding 17 that a restitution order that fails to set forth a payment schedule impermissibly delegates 18 judicial authority to the BOP in violation of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act 19 (“MVRA”). See, e.g., Hickman v. Keffer, 498 Fed. Appx. 375, 379 (5th Cir. 2012). In the 20 Fifth Circuit, Petitioner’s restitution order is valid and if Petitioner were housed in a 21 facility located in the Fifth Circuit, the BOP could impose a payment schedule on 22 Petitioner through the IFRP. However, Petitioner is currently housed at the United States 23 Penitentiary in Tucson, Arizona, which is located within the Ninth Circuit. When the 24 BOP operates in the Ninth Circuit, it is subject to review under the law of the circuit. 25 (Doc. 17, pg. 6.) In the Ninth Circuit, “the BOP lacks the authority to collect restitution 26 payments from the petitioner” unless the petitioner’s restitution order sets forth a 27 payment schedule. Ward, 678 F.3d at 1052. This is true regardless of whether the 28 underlying restitution order is valid in the circuit in which it was issued. Contrary to -2- 1 Respondent’s assertion, the invalidity of the restitution order is not a condition precedent 2 to the relief Petitioner seeks. The Court recognizes that this Circuit split makes BOP’s 3 efforts to collect on restitution orders inconsistent, but it is bound by the law of this 4 Circuit. 5 The Court will modify the remedy recommended by the Magistrate Judge in 6 granting the Petition. The Magistrate Judge concluded that the appropriate remedy for 7 Petitioner is that he be placed on “IFRP Exempt” status “until a proper restitution 8 schedule has been set by the sentencing court.” (Doc. 17, pg. 7.) 9 that it is not possible for a “proper restitution schedule” to be set in Petitioner’s case 10 because Petitioner has no legal basis to challenge the restitution component of his 11 sentence in the Western District of Texas, and any opportunity to appeal that order has 12 expired. The Court agrees with Respondent that there appears to be no likelihood that 13 Petitioner’s restitution schedule will be amended to include a payment schedule. The 14 Court also agrees with Respondent that this Court cannot direct the BOP to place 15 Petitioner on IFRP status: the Court is without the legal authority to direct the BOP in the 16 administration of inmate payments. However, the Magistrate’s conclusion that the BOP 17 lacks authority to impose a payment schedule for Petitioner under the IFRP is nonetheless 18 legally valid pursuant to Ward. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the appropriate 19 remedy is an Order prohibiting Respondents from collecting restitution payments from 20 Petitioner’s accounts so long as he is housed in this Circuit. 21 22 23 Respondent argues CONCLUSION Accordingly, after an independent review, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) is ADOPTED IN PART and REJECTED IN PART. 24 The R&R is ADOPTED insofar as it GRANTS IN PART the Petition for Writ of 25 Habeas Corpus but DENIES in part the Petition’s request for reimbursement for past 26 payments made through IFRP. (Doc. 1.) 27 The R&R is REJECTED insofar as it directs Respondents to place Petitioner on 28 IFRP Exempt status until a proper restitution schedule has been set by the sentencing -3- 1 court. IT IS ORDERED THAT Respondents are prohibited from collecting restitution 2 payments from Petitioner’s accounts so long as he is housed in this Circuit. 3 Dated this 30th day of September, 2014. 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-