Opinion
3:21-CR-22-KAC-DCP-2
03-12-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. LORETTA JOHNSON, Defendant.
ORDER
KATHERINE A. CRYTZER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This criminal case is before the Court on Defendant Johnson's pro se Motion [Doc. 98]. The Court sentenced Defendant Johnson to twenty-four (24) months' imprisonment for bank robbery and conspiracy to commit bank robbery [Doc. 93 at 1-2]. As part of Defendant Johnson's sentence, the Court ordered her to pay $24,933.56 in restitution, jointly and severally with her codefendant, to the victims of her offense [See id. at 6]. The Court ordered Defendant Johnson to make those “restitution payments from any wages [she] may earn in prison in accordance with the Bureau of Prisons' Inmate Financial Responsibility Program” (IFRP) [Id. at 7]. In her Motion, Defendant Johnson asks the Court to enter an “order specifically setting [her] restitution amount for $50-100 a month, during the term of [her] incarceration” or, in the alternative, to “hold” her restitution payment obligation “until [she] get[s] out and back to work” [Doc. 98 at 1]. In support, Defendant Johnson asserts that her payment amount under the IFRP was recently “increased based on FPC Alderson's interpretation of the [IFRP]” which “is causing hardship” on her family [Id.].
As part of its Judgment, the Court ordered Defendant to make restitution payments in accordance with the Bureau of Prisons' IFRP [See id.]. It is not appropriate for the Court to regulate how the Bureau of Prisons operates the IFRP. See Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 404-05 (1974) (“Traditionally, federal courts have adopted a broad hands-off attitude toward the problems of prison administration.”); Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989) (“[T]his Court has afforded considerable deference to the determinations of prison administrators who, in the interest of security, regulate the relations between prisoners and the outside world.”); McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 37 (2002) (“[C]ourts must exercise restraint in supervising the minutiae of prison life.”); see also United States v. London-Clayton, 487 F.Supp.3d 626, 629 (E.D. Mich. 2020) (concluding that district courts lack authority to “modify the operation of [] IFRP or its payment policies as applied to” defendants). The operation of the IFRP is guided by regulations promulgated by the Bureau of Prisons. See 28 C.F.R. Part 545. Defendant may review those regulations and discuss her financial plan and payments with her unit team. See 28 C.F.R. § 545.11 (1999). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant Johnson's pro se Motion [Doc. 98].
SO ORDERED.