×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Eighth Circuit rules that BOP has discretion to place prisoners in IFRP
The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the Bureau of Prisons
(BOP) has the discretion to place prisoners in the Inmate Financial
Responsibility Program (IFRP) when the sentencing court orders immediate
payment of court-imposed fines. This appeal was consolidated to review the
habeas corpus petitions of two federal prisoners at the Arkansas Federal
Correctional Institution in Forest City, who challenging the BOP placing
them in the IFRP and withdrawing $25 per month from their available prison
funds to make payments on court-ordered fines and restitution. The
district court dismissed the claims, holding they should have been brought
in the district where the sentence was imposed under 28 U.S.C. §2255.
The Eighth Circuit held that where the claims, as here, concern the
execution of sentence, they were correctly brought under 28 U.S.C. §2241 in
the district where the sentence is being carried out. However, the Court
held the petitioners were not entitled to relief. The Court found the
petitioners' sentencing orders required immediate payment of the remaining
balance upon release to supervised release. The sentencing Schedule of
Payments, therefore, contemplated payments during incarceration. The Court
held that while the district court had erred in holding it did not have
jurisdiction to hear the claim, the plaintiffs could not prevail on the
merits because the BOP was within its discretion to place the petitioners
in the IFRP payment plan. See: Matheny v. Morrison, 307 F.3d 709 (8th Cir.
2002).
(BOP) has the discretion to place prisoners in the Inmate Financial
Responsibility Program (IFRP) when the sentencing court orders immediate
payment of court-imposed fines. This appeal was consolidated to review the
habeas corpus petitions of two federal prisoners at the Arkansas Federal
Correctional Institution in Forest City, who challenging the BOP placing
them in the IFRP and withdrawing $25 per month from their available prison
funds to make payments on court-ordered fines and restitution. The
district court dismissed the claims, holding they should have been brought
in the district where the sentence was imposed under 28 U.S.C. §2255.
The Eighth Circuit held that where the claims, as here, concern the
execution of sentence, they were correctly brought under 28 U.S.C. §2241 in
the district where the sentence is being carried out. However, the Court
held the petitioners were not entitled to relief. The Court found the
petitioners' sentencing orders required immediate payment of the remaining
balance upon release to supervised release. The sentencing Schedule of
Payments, therefore, contemplated payments during incarceration. The Court
held that while the district court had erred in holding it did not have
jurisdiction to hear the claim, the plaintiffs could not prevail on the
merits because the BOP was within its discretion to place the petitioners
in the IFRP payment plan. See: Matheny v. Morrison, 307 F.3d 709 (8th Cir.
2002).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Matheny v. Morrison
| Year | 2002 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 307 F. 3d 709 (8th Cir. 2002). |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
Matheny v. Morrison, 307 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 10/08/2002)
[1] U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
[2] No. 00-3845,, No. 00-3893
[3] 307 F.3d 709, 2002
[4] October 08, 2002
[5] MAHLON CALHOUN MATHENY, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
MARVIN MORRISON, WARDEN FCI - FORREST CITY (ALSO ORIGINALLY SUED PAUL KLEIN AND KIM HUNTER), APPELLEE.
JAMES DONALD ROBINSON, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
MARVIN MORRISON, WARDEN, FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, FORREST CITY, ARKANSAS (ORIGINALLY SUED AS MARVIN Q. MORRISON), APPELLEE.
[6] Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
[7] Before McMILLIAN, Heaney, and Morris S. Arnold, Circuit Judges.
[8] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Heaney, Circuit Judge
[9] Submitted: March 12, 2002
[10] Mahlon Calhoun Matheny, Jr., and James Donald Robinson, Jr. appeal the district court's *fn1 dismissal of their 28 U.S.C. § 2241 actions, in which they claimed that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP), illegally set the amount and timing of payments toward the financial obligations that are a part of their federal criminal sentences. The district court dismissed all claims without prejudice, finding that they should have been brought through a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the district where sentence was imposed. Although the district court erred in dismissing the petitioners' claims regarding the BOP's execution of their sentences, we affirm the district court because the BOP's actions are not contrary to law.
[11] Matheny was convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida of various drug charges, and was sentenced to serve 112 months in prison, with five years supervised release. He was also directed to pay a fine of $15,000. The court ordered Matheny to pay the fine immediately, and to "pay any remaining fine balance on a payment schedule of not less than $260 per month with the first payment due within 30 days of the defendant's release from custody." United States v. Matheny, No. 4:97CR00063-001, slip op. at 4 (N.D. Fla. June 13, 1998).
[12] While serving his sentence, the IFRP has deducted $25 from Matheny's prison earnings each month as payment toward his $15,000 fine. Matheny believes this program violates the court's order because his participation in the IFRP will have one of two outcomes: he will either repay his fine approximately one year and one month earlier than the sentencing court anticipated, or he will pay $210 a month during the period of his supervised release, not the $260 the court calculated during the sentencing hearing. *fn2 He is concerned that if he fails to pay exactly $260 a month for fifty-eight months, he will violate the terms of his supervised release, subjecting him to further incarceration.
[13] In 1996, Robinson pled guilty to mail fraud as a principal and as an aider and abettor in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. He was sentenced to ninety-seven and a half months in prison, three years supervised release, and ordered to pay approximately $287,000 restitution. The sentencing court ordered that restitution be paid immediately, with special instructions that Robinson was required to make periodic payments against his restitution obligations equaling twenty percent of his gross pay during his supervised release. United States v. Robinson, No. 2:95CR20252-001, slip op. at 5 (W.D.Tenn. Nov. 27, 1996).
[14] Robinson was referred to the IFRP, through which the BOP began withdrawing $25 a month from his prison funds. He believes this payment scheme: 1) violates the district court's schedule of payments for his restitution; and 2) violates Article III of the United States Constitution because the court has delegated its sentencing power to the BOP.
[1] U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
[2] No. 00-3845,, No. 00-3893
[3] 307 F.3d 709, 2002
[4] October 08, 2002
[5] MAHLON CALHOUN MATHENY, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
MARVIN MORRISON, WARDEN FCI - FORREST CITY (ALSO ORIGINALLY SUED PAUL KLEIN AND KIM HUNTER), APPELLEE.
JAMES DONALD ROBINSON, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
MARVIN MORRISON, WARDEN, FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, FORREST CITY, ARKANSAS (ORIGINALLY SUED AS MARVIN Q. MORRISON), APPELLEE.
[6] Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
[7] Before McMILLIAN, Heaney, and Morris S. Arnold, Circuit Judges.
[8] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Heaney, Circuit Judge
[9] Submitted: March 12, 2002
[10] Mahlon Calhoun Matheny, Jr., and James Donald Robinson, Jr. appeal the district court's *fn1 dismissal of their 28 U.S.C. § 2241 actions, in which they claimed that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP), illegally set the amount and timing of payments toward the financial obligations that are a part of their federal criminal sentences. The district court dismissed all claims without prejudice, finding that they should have been brought through a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the district where sentence was imposed. Although the district court erred in dismissing the petitioners' claims regarding the BOP's execution of their sentences, we affirm the district court because the BOP's actions are not contrary to law.
[11] Matheny was convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida of various drug charges, and was sentenced to serve 112 months in prison, with five years supervised release. He was also directed to pay a fine of $15,000. The court ordered Matheny to pay the fine immediately, and to "pay any remaining fine balance on a payment schedule of not less than $260 per month with the first payment due within 30 days of the defendant's release from custody." United States v. Matheny, No. 4:97CR00063-001, slip op. at 4 (N.D. Fla. June 13, 1998).
[12] While serving his sentence, the IFRP has deducted $25 from Matheny's prison earnings each month as payment toward his $15,000 fine. Matheny believes this program violates the court's order because his participation in the IFRP will have one of two outcomes: he will either repay his fine approximately one year and one month earlier than the sentencing court anticipated, or he will pay $210 a month during the period of his supervised release, not the $260 the court calculated during the sentencing hearing. *fn2 He is concerned that if he fails to pay exactly $260 a month for fifty-eight months, he will violate the terms of his supervised release, subjecting him to further incarceration.
[13] In 1996, Robinson pled guilty to mail fraud as a principal and as an aider and abettor in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. He was sentenced to ninety-seven and a half months in prison, three years supervised release, and ordered to pay approximately $287,000 restitution. The sentencing court ordered that restitution be paid immediately, with special instructions that Robinson was required to make periodic payments against his restitution obligations equaling twenty percent of his gross pay during his supervised release. United States v. Robinson, No. 2:95CR20252-001, slip op. at 5 (W.D.Tenn. Nov. 27, 1996).
[14] Robinson was referred to the IFRP, through which the BOP began withdrawing $25 a month from his prison funds. He believes this payment scheme: 1) violates the district court's schedule of payments for his restitution; and 2) violates Article III of the United States Constitution because the court has delegated its sentencing power to the BOP.