Opinion
No. 18-55468
08-22-2019
ROBERT TRINGHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. FELICIA PONCE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-08145-SJO MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Federal prisoner Robert Tringham appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We review de novo, see United States v. Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
The record reflects and the parties agree that, beginning in June 2017 and in accordance with Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2012), the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") exempted Tringham's restitution obligation from collection. As the district court correctly found, Tringham's challenge to the BOP's collection of his restitution obligation through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program ("IFRP") is, therefore, moot. See Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F.3d 996, 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2005) (habeas petition moot when the injury alleged cannot be redressed by a favorable judicial decision). Furthermore, contrary to his contention, Tringham has no preexisting right to benefits conditioned on his participation in the IFRP. See Lemoine, 546 F.3d at 1046. Finally, Tringham's request for reimbursement of the funds previously deducted from his prison wages is not cognizable in a habeas proceeding. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 494 (1973).
Tringham's remaining claims are outside the scope of this appeal.
AFFIRMED.