From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

West v. Thomas

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 21, 2010
388 F. App'x 742 (9th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 08-35648.

Submitted June 29, 2010.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed July 21, 2010.

Alison Clark, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Portland, OR, for Petitioner-Appellee.

Suzanne Bratis, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Respondent-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Malcolm F. Marsh, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 3:07-cv-01440-MFM.

Before: ALARCON, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The Warden appeals from the district court's judgment granting George Anthony West's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

The Warden contends the district court erred by concluding that the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") lacked authority to create a payment plan for West during the period of his incarceration because the sentencing court did not set a schedule of restitution payments in the written judgment. The Warden's contention is unpersuasive because the sentencing court improperly delegated its scheduling duties to the BOP by not setting a repayment schedule. See United States v. Gunning, 401 F.3d 1145, 1150 (9th Cir. 2005). Thus, we affirm the district court as to this issue.

The Warden further contends the district court erred by concluding that West's participation in the. Inmate Financial Responsibility Program ("IFRP") was involuntary because he participated in it only to avoid a loss of benefits. This contention is well-taken because we recently rejected a petitioner's contention that his participation in the IFRP was involuntary. See United States v. Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2008), Because the district court did not have the benefit of Lemoine at the time of its decision, we reverse and remand for further proceedings ir light of this disposition. See id. at 1050-51.

AFFIRMED in part; and REMANDED in part.


Summaries of

West v. Thomas

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 21, 2010
388 F. App'x 742 (9th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

West v. Thomas

Case Details

Full title:George Anthony WEST, Petitioner-Appellee, v. J.E. THOMAS, Warden…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jul 21, 2010

Citations

388 F. App'x 742 (9th Cir. 2010)

Citing Cases

Salanardi v. Graber

This Court finds that the record in this case fully supports the Magistrate Judge's conclusion to deny the…

Warren v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons

Id. He may also challenge deductions pursuant to the IFRP under § 2241.See e.g. Watford v. Chavez, 388 Fed.…