Goodwin v. Martinez

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM and ORDER GRANTING 14 MOTION for Reconsideration; SUSTAINING petitioner's objections; Clerk of Court is directed to REOPEN case and remand to MJ Blewitt for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Signed by Honorable James M. Munley on 11/16/09. (sm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA LEARLY REED GOODWIN, Petitioner : No. 3:09cv474 : : (Judge Munley) : : (Magistrate Judge Blewitt) v. : : RICARDO MARTINEZ, WARDEN, : Respondent : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
M E M O R AN D U M B e fo re the court is petitioner's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 14) of the c o u rt's order adopting the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Thomas M . Blewitt, which proposed that the court dismiss the instant petition for a writ of h a b e a s corpus. B a c k g ro u n d O n March 13, 2009, Learly Reed Goodwin filed the instant petition for a writ of h a b e a s corpus in this court. Petitioner contends that the court that sentenced him fa ile d to establish a specific schedule for payments due under the Mandatory Victim R e s titu tio n Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, during his incarceration. Petitioner contends th a t the Bureau of Prisons set up this schedule, and that the Bureau lacked authority to do so. As such, he seeks an order from the court barring the Bureau from e n fo rc in g this schedule of payments or instituting any sanctions against the p e titio n e r for failing to comply with the payment schedule. Magistrate Judge Blewitt

granted petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3). Repondent filed a response with attached exhibits (Doc. 7), and petitioner filed a tra ve rs e (Doc. 8). The magistrate judge then issued a report and recommendation (D o c . 14), which concluded that petitioner could not obtain relief through habeas c o rp u s and recommended dismissal of the case. W h e n the magistrate judge issued his report and recommendation he in fo rm e d the petitioner of the deadline for filing objections. As a result, the court c o n s id e re d the report and recommendation on a deferential standard and adopted it. After the court closed the case, the plaintiff filed the instant motion for re c o n s id e ra tio n , in which he attacks the reasons for the magistrate judge's decision. Because petitioner is proceeding pro se, the court concludes that justice would be s e rve d by granting the motion for reconsideration and reexamining the report and re c o m m e n d a tio n in light of the petitioner's objections. See Max's Seafood Cafe ex re l. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (finding that in a m o tio n for reconsideration "[t]he movant must demonstrate one of three grounds for s u c h a motion to be granted: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the a va ila b ility of new evidence not previously available; or (3) the need to correct a c le a r error of law or to prevent manifest injustice."). As such, the court will grant the m o tio n for reconsideration and consider petitioner's objections to the report and r e c o m m e n d a tio n . J u r is d ic tio n

2

Because petitioner filed his action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the court has ju ris d ic tio n pursuant the court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ("The d is tric t courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the C o n s titu tio n , laws, or treaties of the United States."). Legal Standard W h e n dealing with objections to a magistrate judge's report and re c o m m e n d a tio n , a district court must make a de novo determination of those p o rtio n s of the report to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). This c o u rt may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or re c o m m e n d a tio n s made by the magistrate. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). The district c o u rt judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the m a g is tra te judge with instructions. Id. Discussion T h e magistrate judge concluded that habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S. § 2 2 4 1 was an inappropriate remedy for the facts about which plaintiff complains, b e c a u s e the petitioner does not challenge the fact or duration of his sentence. A h a b e a s petition may be brought by a prisoner who seeks to challenge either the fact o r duration of his confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 45, 494 (1973). The m a g is tra te judge found that petitioner's challenge to the BOP's imposition of the te rm s of his restitution is not a challenge to the fact or duration of his sentence, but in s te a d is an attempt to impose liability on the respondent for violating his rights, 3

privileges or immunities under the United States Constitution. Here, the petitioner c h a lle n g e s the legality of the sentence imposed on him by the district court, claiming th a t it was imposed contrary to law. Thus, the court concludes that petitioner's c h a lle n g e is to the fact or duration of his sentence, not to the conditions of his c o n fin e m e n t. As such, a petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus is an appropriate re m e d y in this instance and the court will decline to adopt the report and re c o m m e n d a tio n on this matter. T h e court must therefore turn to an evaluation of petitioner's substantive claim. The MVRA mandates that the sentencing court "specify in the restitution order the m a n n e r in which, and the schedule according to which, the restitution is to be paid." 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded that "o rd e rin g restitution is a judicial function that cannot be delegated, in whole or in p a rt." United States v. Corley, 500 F.3d 210, 225 (3d Cir. 2007). In Corley, the court fo u n d that under the MVRA the sentencing judge was required to consider a d e fe n d a n t's finances in ordering restitution. Id. If the sentencing court had k n o w le d g e that a defendant "could not make immediate payment in full, it was re q u ire d under § 3664(2) to set a different schedule of payments." Id. To do o th e rw is e , the court found, would constitute an impermissible delegation of the c o u rt's responsibility. Id. The court cannot determine from the documents before it h o w the sentencing court determined the schedule of petitioner's restitution p a ym e n t. The court will therefore remand the case to the magistrate judge for

4

consideration of how petitioner's sentence was imposed. In a footnote to its response to the petition, the government represents that the c la im should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. "A federal p ris o n e r must exhaust available administrative remedies before seeking habeas re lie f." United States ex rel. Sanders v. Arnold, 535 F.2d 848, 850 (3d Cir. 1976). The evidence does not indicate what administrative remedies were available, and w h e th e r the petitioner properly exhausted them. On remand, the parties should a d d re s s the issue of whether petitioner has properly exhausted his administrative r e m e d ie s . C o n c lu s io n F o r the reasons stated above, the court will decline to adopt the report and re c o m m e n d a tio n and order the case remanded to the magistrate judge.

5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA LEARLY REED GOODWIN, Petitioner : No. 3:09cv474 : : (Judge Munley) : : (Magistrate Judge Blewitt) v. : : RICARDO MARTINEZ, WARDEN, : Respondent : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
ORDER AN D NOW, to wit, this 16th day of November 2009, the petitioner's motion for re c o n s id e ra tio n (Doc. 14) of the court's order closing the instant case (Doc. 13) is h e re b y GRANTED. The petitioner's objections to the report and recommendation a re hereby SUSTAINED. The Clerk of Court is directed to REOPEN the case and R E M AN D it to Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Blewitt for proceedings consistent with th is opinion.

BY THE COURT: s / James M. Munley JUDGE JAMES M. MUNLEY U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT COURT

6