Trifu v. Apker
ORDER DISMISSING as MOOT Habeas Petition 1 ; DECLINING to Adopt as MOOT Findings and Recommendations 20 ; and DENYING as MOOT Motion for Injunctive Relief 14 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/30/17: The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE. (Hellings, J)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DORU GABRIEL TRIFU,
CRAIG APKER, Warden,
ORDER DISMISSING AS MOOT HABEAS
PETITION (ECF NO. 1); DECLINING TO
ADOPT AS MOOT FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS (ECF NO. 20);
AND DENYING AS MOOT MOTION FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (ECF. NO. 14)
Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenges the implementation and collection of restitution and felony assessments
under the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (“IFRP”) by private prison employees. ECF No. 1.
Petitioner is incarcerated at Taft Correctional Institution’s (“TCI”), a federal prison owned and operated
by Management and Training Corporation (“MTC”) pursuant to a contract with the Bureau of Prisions
(“BOP”). Among other things, Petitioner asserts that the action of taking his restitution was an abuse of
process in light of the language of federal regulations including 28 C.F.R. § 545.10 which limits the
authority of the Bureau of Prisons to collect restitution. Id. at 3. 28 C.F.R. § 545.10 provides that BOP
“staff” shall assist an inmate in developing a financial plan for meeting financial obligations. 28 C.F.R. §
500.1 in turn defines “staff” as “any employee of the Bureau of Prisons or Federal Prison Industries,
It is undisputed that personnel at MTC denied Petitioner’s request for a review of his IFRP and
refused to permit him to appeal to BOP, indicating that the “issue is not appealable to the BOP.” See
ECF No. 1 at 16. In response to this Court’s request for supplemental briefing, BOP presented evidence
indicating that BOP accepted and processed Petitioner’s administrative appeal concerning his IFRP.
(ECF No. 34.) On September 5, 2017, this Court ordered Petitioner to show cause “in writing on or
before October 20, 2017 why his Petition . . . should not be dismissed as moot because the claim
Petitioner originally raised is no longer in dispute.” ECF No. 36. Petitioner failed to respond to the OSC
by the relevant deadline.
The Court finds that the Petition is moot because Petitioner has received the relief he requested:
review of his IFRP by BOP. Accordingly, the Petition (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED AS MOOT. For the
10 same reason, the Court DECLINES TO ADOPT the magistrate judge’s Findings and Recommendations
11 because those are also moot. Finally, Petitioner’s pending motion for injunctive relief is DENIED AS
12 MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.
14 IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____
October 30, 2017
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?