Filed: Jan. 03, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-60377 Summary Calendar DENNIS BACERIO, Petitioner-Appellant, versus KHURSHID Z. YUSUFF, Respondent-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 5:99-CV-65-BrS - - - - - - - - - - January 3, 2001 Before DAVIS, JONES and DEMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Dennis Bacerio, a federal prisoner (# 49277-004), appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 2
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-60377 Summary Calendar DENNIS BACERIO, Petitioner-Appellant, versus KHURSHID Z. YUSUFF, Respondent-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 5:99-CV-65-BrS - - - - - - - - - - January 3, 2001 Before DAVIS, JONES and DEMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Dennis Bacerio, a federal prisoner (# 49277-004), appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-60377
Summary Calendar
DENNIS BACERIO,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
KHURSHID Z. YUSUFF,
Respondent-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 5:99-CV-65-BrS
- - - - - - - - - -
January 3, 2001
Before DAVIS, JONES and DEMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Dennis Bacerio, a federal prisoner (# 49277-004), appeals
the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas
corpus petition, wherein he argued that prison officials had
improperly forced him to sign a contract to pay his fine on a
monthly basis and that the Bureau of Prisons lacked legal
authority to set a payment schedule for his fine.
The district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain
Bacerio’s § 2241 petition because Bacerio’s contentions regarding
a monetary fine did not satisfy the “in custody” requirement of
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.
47.5.4.
No. 00-60377
-2-
§ 2241. See, e.g., United States v. Segler,
37 F.3d 1131, 1137-
38 (5th Cir. 1994) (district court lacked jurisdiction over
§ 2255 claim regarding monetary fine); United States v. Hatten,
167 F.3d 884, 885 (5th Cir. 1999) (concluding that district court
lacked jurisdiction over motion for declaratory judgment in which
movant sought to prevent Probation Office from collecting
restitution payments). Accordingly, the district court’s order
is VACATED and this case is REMANDED with instructions to enter
an order dismissing the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction.
VACATED and REMANDED.