Opinion ID: 783043
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Does the restitution order constitute custody?

Text: 5 We review de novo a district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition. Frederick v. Warden, Lewisburg Corr. Facility, 308 F.3d 192, 195 (2d Cir. 2002). We begin by examining the relevant statutory text. 6 A prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence. 7 28 U.S.C. § 2255. It is not disputed that Kaminski was in custody by virtue of his imprisonment at the time his petition was filed. It is clear, therefore, that Kaminski's attacks on his sentence of incarceration were properly considered on their merits as part of his § 2255 petition. See Scanio v. United States, 37 F.3d 858, 860 (2d Cir.1994). 8 But the question remains: How does the phrase claiming the right to be released affect the meaning of the text that follows it? If the phrase had omitted the words the right to be released upon the ground, and had said simply a prisoner . . . claiming. . . that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, then § 2255 might comfortably be read to permit a federal prisoner to challenge any allegedly illegal aspect of his or her sentence. The words claiming the right to be released are in the statute, however. And, in order to give them meaning, it is argued that they must be read to exclude from federal habeas review at least those petitions that contain no claims relating to a prisoner's custody, no claims, that is, that cannot be construed as demands to be released from custody. On this reading, it would follow that a petitioner who challenges just the restitution portion of his sentence is asserting his right to be released from custody only if the restitution order itself amounts to a form of custody. 9 Several circuits have held that neither a fine nor an order of restitution amounts to custody. See, e.g., Barnickel v. United States, 113 F.3d 704, 706 (7th Cir.1997); United States v. Michaud, 901 F.2d 5, 7 (1st Cir.1990) (A monetary fine is not a sufficient restraint on liberty to meet the `in custody' requirement for § 2255 purposes.). We have noted holdings like these. See Poodry v. Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians, 85 F.3d 874, 894 (2d Cir. 1996) (citing cases, from other circuits, in which modest fines did not suffice to find custody). But we have, to date, not adopted a rule declaring fines and restitution orders to be, ipso facto, noncustodial. That is, we have not as yet foreclosed the possibility that a restitution order might entail a sufficiently severe restraint on liberty, not shared by the public at large, as to amount to a form of custody. Cf., e.g., Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345, 351, 93 S.Ct. 1571, 36 L.Ed.2d 294 (1973); Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 243, 83 S.Ct. 373, 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963); Poodry, 85 F.3d at 894 ([T]he inquiry into whether a petitioner has satisfied the jurisdictional prerequisites for habeas review requires a court to judge the `severity' of an actual or potential restraint on liberty.). 10 Whether a fine or restitution order could ever be such a restraint on the liberty of a petitioner as to amount to custody is a question we need not reach today, however. The order in the instant case, limited as it is to payment on a monthly basis of the greater of ten percent of Kaminski's monthly income or $100, plainly does not come close to doing so. That being so, we conclude that the restitution order before us does not bring about custody, and, therefore hold that an attack on that order would not, without more, seek release from custody.