Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Shorter, 5:11-90-KKC. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. Kentucky Number: infdco20160307669 Visitors: 15
Filed: Mar. 04, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 04, 2016
Summary: OPINION & ORDER KAREN K. CALDWELL , Chief District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Defendant Johnathan Shorter's request for an injunction. (DE 47.) By letter, Defendant explains that the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") has proposed payment of half of his prison salary (approximately $25.00-$60.00 per month) towards his Court ordered restitution. Defendant alleges that the BOP proposal violates this Court's July 10, 2012, order and he seeks injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of
More

OPINION & ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Johnathan Shorter's request for an injunction. (DE 47.) By letter, Defendant explains that the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") has proposed payment of half of his prison salary (approximately $25.00-$60.00 per month) towards his Court ordered restitution. Defendant alleges that the BOP proposal violates this Court's July 10, 2012, order and he seeks injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of the proposal. (DE 47.)

Specifically, Defendant avers that the BOP's actions are in direct violation of this Court's directive that "[w]hile incarcerated, Defendant shall make minimum quarterly payments toward restitution . . . not less than $60.00 per quarter" and that "[i]f U.S. Probation believes Defendant can pay an additional monthly amount. . . Probation shall submit a request for a modification[.]" (DE 42 at 3-4.). Contrary to the explicit language of the order, Defendant apparently has interpreted these instructions as setting forth the entirety of his possible quarterly payment obligations towards restitution.

However, the portion of the order cited by Defendant clearly establishes no more than a minimum quarterly payment. The Court's order was drafted and entered with full knowledge of the BOP policies on Inmate Financial Responsibility. If the Court had sought to restrict the BOP's discretion regarding the Defendant's restitution responsibilities, beyond setting a mandatory minimum payment, it would have done so explicitly.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's request for an injunction (DE 47) is DENIED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer