Dozier v. Lake et al

Filing 20

ORDER adopting 17 Report and Recommendation. IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1 ) is DENIED. The Clerk is ordered to close the file in this case. Signed by Judge James A Soto on 9/21/2016.(SIB)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Cornelius Dozier, IV,

10

No. 4:15-CV-00477-TUC-JAS

Petitioner,

11

v.

12

S. Lake,

13

ORDER

Respondent.

14
15

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United

16

States Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman that recommends denying the petition on the

17

merits. (Doc. 17). Petitioner filed an objection (Doc. 18), and Respondent filed a Reply

18

to the Objection (Doc. 19).

19

The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the Report and

20

Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court reviews for

21

clear error the unobjected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. Johnson v.

22

Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Conley v. Crabtree, 14

23

F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998).

24

After reviewing Magistrate Judge Bowman’s Report and Recommendation, the

25

Court adopts the reasoning and conclusions of that report. In particular, the Court agrees

26

with Judge Bowman’s analysis concluding that this case is controlled by United States v.

27

Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2008). In that case, the Ninth Circuit explained that

28
the BOP's operation of the IFRP does not constitute an unlawful delegation

1
2
3
4
5

of authority to schedule restitution repayments in violation of the MVRA.
The MVRA requires the sentencing court to set a restitution repayment
schedule. The sentencing court did that here. The MVRA does not prohibit
an inmate from voluntarily making larger or more frequent payments than
what was set by the sentencing court. Nor does it limit the authority of the
BOP, through the IFRP, to offer incentives to inmates to pay their
restitution obligations in larger amounts or at a faster rate than the court has
required.

6

Id. at 1046. The same reasoning applies here. As Judge Bowman explains in her Report

7

and Recommendation, the trial court set a restitution amount of $35,317.43 to be paid “at

8

the rate of not less than $25 per quarter and payment shall be made through the Bureau of

9

Prisons’ Inmate Financial Responsibility Program.” (Doc. 13-3, p.3). After an incident of

10

non-payment, the Bureau of Prisons reassessed Petitioner’s financial situation and

11

determined that he could increase his payments to $30 per month. Petitioner agreed to

12

the new payment schedule. Nothing in the Court’s restitution order prevents the Bureau

13

of Prisons and Petitioner from agreeing to a payment plan at a higher rate than that set by

14

the trial court.

15

Based on these reasons, IT IS ORDERED THAT

16

(1) The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED.

17

(2) The Clerk is ordered to close the file in this case.

18

Dated this 21st day of September, 2016.

19
20
21
22
23

Honorable James A. Soto
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
-2-