Filed: Apr. 29, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 09-13295 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT APRIL 29, 2010 Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY _ CLERK D. C. Docket No. 07-22901-CV-MGC ROBERT STEWART, Petitioner-Appellant, versus FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Jorge L. Pastrana, Warden, ANTHONY RICHARDSON, Unit Manager, WENDALL CARR, Case Manager, MARK JONES, Unit Counselor, AUSA US ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Respondents-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States Di
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 09-13295 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT APRIL 29, 2010 Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY _ CLERK D. C. Docket No. 07-22901-CV-MGC ROBERT STEWART, Petitioner-Appellant, versus FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Jorge L. Pastrana, Warden, ANTHONY RICHARDSON, Unit Manager, WENDALL CARR, Case Manager, MARK JONES, Unit Counselor, AUSA US ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Respondents-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States Dis..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-13295 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 29, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 07-22901-CV-MGC
ROBERT STEWART,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Jorge L. Pastrana, Warden,
ANTHONY RICHARDSON,
Unit Manager,
WENDALL CARR,
Case Manager,
MARK JONES,
Unit Counselor,
AUSA US ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,
Respondents-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(April 29, 2010)
Before MARCUS, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Stewart, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the denial of his petition
for a writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Stewart argues that the district
court in its order of restitution allegedly delegated its authority to establish
restitution payments to the Bureau of Prisons and that the Bureau collected that
restitution illegally. Stewart is not entitled to relief. We vacate and remand for the
district court to dismiss Stewart’s petition.
After the district court denied Stewart’s petition, we held that an inmate
cannot attack collaterally an order of restitution using section 2241. Arnaiz v.
Warden, Fed. Satellite Low, 594 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2010). Arnaiz was
convicted of conspiracy to launder money and sentenced to imprisonment and
restitution in excess of 24 million dollars.
Id. at 1327. Arnaiz later filed a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge his order of restitution, and the district
court dismissed the petition on the ground that Arnaiz failed to satisfy the “savings
clause” of the statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2255, that ordinarily governs collateral attacks
of federal convictions.
Id. at 1327–28. We agreed that a dismissal was
2
appropriate, but for another reason. Id. at 1328. We examined the historical
purpose of habeas corpus, and we recognized that its remedy “remains tied to some
form of relief from the petitioner’s custody.”
Id. at 1328–29; see Preiser v.
Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 475, 484–85,
93 S. Ct. 1827, 1833 (1973). We held that
Arnaiz could not pursue habeas relief because “a successful challenge to the
restitution part of his sentence would, in no way, provide relief for the physical
confinement supplying the custody necessary for federal habeas jurisdiction.”
Arnaiz, 594 F.3d at 1329.
Based on Arnaiz, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Stewart’s
petition. Stewart could not use a petition for a writ of habeas corpus “to challenge
just the restitution part of a sentence when the custody supporting our jurisdiction
is actual imprisonment.” Id. at 1330. We VACATE the order that denied
Stewart’s petition and REMAND for the district court to dismiss Stewart’s
petition.
VACATED and REMANDED.
3
