Source: http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20130507_0000822.MPA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-04-26 09:55:00
Document Index: 623735692

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 848', '§ 841', '§ 848', '§ 1952', '§ 2', '§ 2241', '§ 1404', '§ 2241']

| Turner v. Zickenfose
ERIC M. TURNER, Petitioner,v.D. ZICKENFOSE, Respondent.
In this habeas petition, the petitioner, Eric M. Turner, challenges the Bureau of Prisons' collection of payments from him toward his court-ordered restitution pursuant to the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP). The respondent requests that the case be transferred to the sentencing court, and Turner agrees that the case should be transferred. For the reasons set forth below, we recommend that the petition be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.
Turner was convicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise (CCE) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848, distributing crack cocaine in furtherance of a CCE in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), a killing resulting from a CCE in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A), interstate travel in aid of a racketeering enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952, using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c), and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2. Doc. 5-1 at 7. In April of 1998, Judge Broadwater of the Northern District of West Virginia sentenced Turner to a term of imprisonment for life plus five years. Id. He also imposed a $400.00 special assessment on Turner and ordered Turner to pay $3, 059.57 in restitution. Id. at 12. Turner's criminal judgment states that he shall pay the "criminal monetary penalties in accordance with the schedule of payments set forth on Sheet 5, Part B." Id. In December of 2012, Turner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Turner challenges the Bureau of Prisons' collection of restitution from him pursuant to the IFRP. He claims that under threat of being place in IFRP-refusal status, which would lead to the loss of certain privileges, he was forced to execute an IFRP contract. He seeks an order placing him in "IFRP exempt status" and reimbursement of funds previously deducted from his account. He claims that the BOP's collection of restitution payments from him contravenes the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 because the sentencing court did not set a schedule of payments.
The respondent asserts that he has learned from the Clerk of Court of the Northern District of West Virginia that "Sheet 5, Part B, " referred to in Turner's criminal judgment, is a document "specially adopted by that district" which remains sealed unless the court grants a motion to unseal. Respondent asserts that, because that document is sealed, he does not have a clear statement of the terms of the restitution order in Turner's case. He also asserts that he cannot with certainty ascertain what financial information was before and relied on by the sentencing court. The respondent, however, points out that the sentencing court has access to all the relevant information. Therefore, the respondent requests that the case be transferred to the sentencing court.
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). This provision applies to habeas cases, and judges in this district have transferred § 2241 habeas cases challenging collections under the BOP's IFRP to the sentencing court. See e.g., Massaquoi v. Thomas, Civil No. 1:11-CV-01563, 2012 WL 4069768 (M.D.Pa. 2012)(Rambo, J.); Diaz v. Scism, 1:11-CV-0490, 2011 WL 2135392 (M.D. Pa. May 31, 2011)(Jones, J.); Gardner v. Williamson, Civil No. 3:07-CV-1788, 2008 WL 1752229 (M.D.Pa. April 14, 2008) (Munley, J.).