U.S. v. Stewart

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TERRY W. STEWART

Court: United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division

Date published: Mar 13, 2007

CRIMINAL NO. 3:01CR11-2 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 13, 2007)

Opinion

CRIMINAL NO. 3:01CR11-2.

March 13, 2007

ORDER

LACY THORNBURG, District Judge

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's pro se motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3572 to adjust the amount of restitution payments he is required to make through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program.

The Bureau of Prisons has the authority to place a defendant in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program based on the wording contained in the criminal judgment. United States v. Watkins, 161 F. App'x 337 (4^th Cir. 2006); Bramson v. Winn, 136 F. App'x 380 (1^st Cir. 2005). Prior to seeking relief from any court concerning obligations under that program, the defendant is required to exhaust all administrative remedies through the Bureau of Prisons. McGhee v. Clark, 166 F.3d 884, 885-87 (7^th Cir. 1999). Thereafter, a defendant may challenge such payments but only by filing the appropriate pleading in the district court of confinement, not with the sentencing court. Matheny v. Morrison, 307 F.3d 709, 712 (8^th Cir. 2002); Moore v. Olson, 368 F.3d 757, 759 (7^th Cir. 2004).

The current motion is Defendant's third pro se motion to amend or alter his judgment. See, Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b), filed January 12, 2007; Order, filed February 14, 2007 (denying same); Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment pursuant to Rule 59, filed March 2, 2007; Order, filed March 5, 2007 (denying same). The Defendant has been advised that this Court has no jurisdiction to issue a ruling on Defendant's motions because his case is presently on appeal and he has been warned that he may not file pro se motions with the Court because he is represented by counsel. To date, the Defendant has not heeded the Court's warning.

Prisoners do not have an absolute and unconditional right of access to the courts in order to prosecute frivolous, malicious, abusive or vexatious motions. Demos v. Keating, 33 F. App'x 918 (10^th Cir. 2002); Tinker v. Hanks, 255 F.3d 444, 445 (7^th Cir. 2001); In re Vincent, 105 F.3d 943 (4^th Cir. 1997). The Defendant is hereby notified that all future pro se pleadings submitted by him will not be filed but will be reviewed pursuant to a pre-filing review system. Vestal v. Clinton, 106 F.3d 553 (4^th Cir. 1997). Pleadings presented to the Court which are not made in good faith and which do not contain substance will not be filed. Foley v. Fix, 106 F.3d 556 (4^th Cir. 1997); In re Head, 19 F.3d 1429 (table), 1994 WL 118464 (4^th Cir. 1994). Thereafter, if such writings persist, the pre-filing system may be modified to include an injunction. See, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a); In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254 (2d Cir. 1984). IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant's motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3572 is hereby DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no pro se pleadings submitted from the Defendant shall be filed by the Clerk of Court absent instruction from the undersigned.