Cargill v. Jacquez

[7] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [8] WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE [10] QUINCETTA YVONNE CARGILL, CASE NO. 2:22-cv-01159-LK [11] Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING IN PART 12 v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND 13 HOWARD BARRON, DISMISSING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART HABEAS 14 Respondent. PETITION [15] 16 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 17 United States Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson, recommending denial of Quincetta Yvonne 18 Cargill’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 . Dkt. Nos. 1, 19 6. Ms. Cargill timely objected to the R&R. Dkt. No. 7. Having reviewed Judge Peterson’s 20 recommendations, Ms. Cargill’s objections, and the relevant record, the Court modifies the R&R 21 as set forth below. [24] 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Ms. Cargill is currently confined at the Federal Detention Center in SeaTac, Washington. 3 See Dkt. No. 1 at 1.1 She is serving a 180-month sentence after being convicted of conspiracy to 4 commit mail and wire fraud, as well as witness tampering. See United States v. Cargill, Case No. 5 2:17-cr-00356-RDP-JHE, Dkt. No. 282 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 16, 2020). At trial, Ms. Cargill 6 represented herself with the assistance of “hybrid counsel.” Id. at 1 . In addition to her term of 7 confinement and supervised release, Ms. Cargill was ordered to pay $1,096,668.68 in restitution 8 to the Internal Revenue Service. Id. at 3, 6 . Ms. Cargill appealed her conviction, and the United 9 States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings during the 10 pendency of the instant habeas proceedings. United States v. Cargill, No. 20-13507, 2022 WL 11 4375292, at *1 (11th Cir. Sept. 22, 2022) (per curiam). 12 Ms. Cargill’s habeas petition in this case challenges the restitution ordered in her 13 underlying criminal case and her participation in the Bureau of Prison’s (“BOP”) Inmate Financial 14 Responsibility Program (“IFRP”). Dkt. No. 1 at 6–8.2 Ms. Cargill also filed an “emergency 15 motion” requesting that the Court halt the restitution order. Dkt. No. 4 at 1. The R&R recommends 16 denying Ms. Cargill’s petition for lack of jurisdiction because although she “styles her pleading as 17 a petition for writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 it is, in effect, a motion under § 2255 as it 18 challenges the validity of the sentence imposed in her Northern District of Alabama case.” Dkt. [19] 1 In her petition, Ms. Cargill properly named Israel Jacquez as respondent because at the time of filing, Jacquez was 20 the warden of FDC SeaTac, the facility where Ms. Cargill is detained. Dkt. No. 1 at 1; see also Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 , 434–35 (2004) (explaining that the proper respondent to a habeas petition is the person with “immediate 21 custody” over the petitioner); Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (same). During the pendency of these proceedings, however, Howard Barron replaced Jacquez as warden. Accordingly, the Court substitutes Barron as respondent because he is Ms. Cargill’s current immediate custodian. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d); [22] Federal Bureau of Prisons, FDC SeaTac Admissions & Orientation Handbook, https://www.bop.gov/locations/instit utions/set/set_ao-handbook.pdf?v=1.0.0 (last visited Sept. 18, 2023). [23] 2 The Court notes that Ms. Cargill has filed two other habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in this district: Cargill v. Jacquez, No. 2:22-CV-00900-LK (W.D. Wash. June 25, 2022) and Cargill v. Jacquez, No. 2:22-CV-01288-LK 24 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 12, 2022). 1 No. 6 at 3. Accordingly, the R&R concludes that “her challenge must be brought via a motion 2 under § 2255” in the Northern District of Alabama, and also recommends denying Ms. Cargill’s 3 “emergency motion.” Id. at 4. 4 Ms. Cargill’s objections to the R&R largely rehash her petition and also argue that the 5 restitution order has created conditions of confinement properly challenged in a habeas petition 6 under Section 2241. See Dkt. No. 7 at 3 (“[T]he restitution order . . . imposed by the court as part 7 of the sentence[] has created a harsh environment and has created an economic hardship that makes 8 it nearly impossible to survive prison under the circumstances[.]”); see also id. (claiming that “the 9 restitution amount was falsified”); id. at 4–5 (describing the difficulties imposed on her by the 10 IFRP). 11 II. DISCUSSION 12 A. Standard of Review 13 The Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified 14 proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or 15 modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 16 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (the Court “must determine de novo any 17 part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). As the statute and 18 rule suggest, the Court reviews findings and recommendations “if objection is made, but not 19 otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) 20 (emphasis in original). 21 B. Ms. Cargill’s Claims Challenging the Restitution Amount Fall Within the Scope of Section 2255(a) and the Court Therefore Lacks Jurisdiction [22] “Generally, motions to contest the legality of a sentence must be filed under § 2255 in the [23] sentencing court, while petitions that challenge the manner, location, or conditions of a sentence’s [24] 1 execution must be brought pursuant to § 2241 in the custodial court.” Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 2 F.3d 861 , 864 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam); accord Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 955 (9th 3 Cir. 2008); Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2006). There is an exception to this 4 general rule, though, “termed the § 2255(e) ‘escape hatch,’” that “permits a federal prisoner to file 5 a habeas corpus petition pursuant to § 2241 to contest the legality of a sentence where his remedy 6 under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” Allen v. Ives, 950 7 F.3d 1184, 1188 (9th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (e). The Ninth Circuit has 8 held that the escape hatch exception applies when the prisoner (1) claims actual innocence, and 9 (2) has not been afforded an unobstructed procedural shot at presenting that claim. Allen, 950 F.3d 10 at 1188; see also Marrero v. Ives, 682 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2012). 11 Here, Ms. Cargill has not claimed actual innocence or, more fundamentally, shown that 12 she has been deprived an unobstructed procedural shot at presenting such claim with respect to the 13 restitution ordered by the sentencing court. As the R&R stated, and as Ms. Cargill has been 14 previously advised by other courts, the next step after direct appeal of her conviction and sentence 15 is to pursue a motion under Section 2255 in the Northern District of Alabama. See Dkt. No. 6 at 4; 16 Cargill v. U.S. Sent’g Comm’n, No. 2:20-CV-01066-AKK-JHE, 2020 WL 6164463 , at *1 (N.D. 17 Ala. Sept. 25, 2020) (“Should Cargill not receive the relief she seeks on direct appeal, she must 18 then proceed through a motion to vacate pursuant to § 2255, rather than a petition pursuant to 19 § 2241.”), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 6164429 (N.D. Ala. Oct. 21, 2020). In 20 fact, Ms. Cargill has filed such a motion: on August 3, 2023, she filed a motion under Section 2255 21 to vacate, set aside, or correct her sentence in the Northern District of Alabama. Cargill v. United 22 States, Case No. 2:23-cv-8022, Dkt. No. 1 (N.D. Ala.). That matter is still pending.3 [23] 3 Ms. Cargill also filed a motion to vacate her conviction and sentence in United States v. Cargill, Case No. 2:17-cr24 00356-RDP-JHE, on August 2, 2023. See id. at Dkt. No. 399. 1 In addition, the Court notes that even if Ms. Cargill could bring her motion in this district, 2 she cannot file a second or successive petition under Section 2255 unless she makes a prima facie 3 showing to the appropriate court of appeals that the petition contains: 4 (1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that 5 no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the 6 Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable. [7] 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (h); see Jones v. Hendrix, 143 S. Ct. 1857 , 1868 (2023). 8 Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R’s conclusion that Ms. Cargill’s challenge to 9 aspects of her underlying conviction and sentence, including the resulting order of restitution, must 10 be brought under Section 2255. See Dkt. No. 1 at 6–7 (challenging restitution amount in Grounds 11 One through Three of habeas petition). The Court finds no basis for jurisdiction over such claims, 12 and for the same reasons denies Ms. Cargill’s emergency motion to cease enforcement of the 13 restitution order. To the extent she seeks to correct, modify, or adjust her restitution order, Section 14 2241 is not an appropriate vehicle for doing so. See 18 U.S.C. § 3664 (o)(1). 15 C. Ms. Cargill’s IFRP Claim Falls Within Section 2241 But is Without Merit 16 With respect to Ms. Cargill’s claim in Ground Four regarding her IFRP participation, id. 17 at 8, such claims may be raised in this Court under Section 2241, as they contest the execution of 18 her sentence. See, e.g., Rice v. Thompson, No. 21-16200, 2021 WL 6103019 , at *1 (9th Cir. Dec. 19 22, 2021) (“[Petitioner]’s challenge . . . to the execution of the restitution award . . . is properly 20 raised in a § 2241 habeas petition.”); United States v. Armstead, No. CR04-512-JLR, 2010 WL 21 11679206, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 26, 2010) (“[A]ny challenge to the execution of [petitioner’s] 22 sentence, including the payment of restitution, should be brought as a habeas petition under 28 23 U.S.C. § 2241 [.]”). “As a prudential matter, courts require that habeas petitioners exhaust all 24 available judicial and administrative remedies before seeking relief under § 2241,” unless doing 1 so would be futile. Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2012). Ms. Cargill claims futility 2 and submits correspondence appearing to reflect her attempts to administratively raise this issue. 3 See Dkt. No. 1-1 at 4–5, 9. The Bureau of Prisons has informed her that it is “simply follow[ing] 4 the court order for you to pay a minimum of $25 a quarter.” Id. at 4–5, 9. However, even if 5 exhaustion would have been futile and is therefore waivable, see Ward, 678 F.3d at 1045–46, Ms. 6 Cargill’s IFRP claim is foreclosed by United States v. Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2008). 7 In Lemoine, the Ninth Circuit held that “the BOP’s operation of the IFRP does not 8 constitute an unlawful delegation of authority to schedule restitution repayments in violation of 9 the [Mandatory Victims Restitution Act],” and that where the sentencing court sets a restitution 10 repayment schedule, the BOP maintains the authority to impose consequences on inmates who 11 refuse to participate in the IFRP. 546 F.3d at 1046 ; see also Ward, 678 F.3d at 1047 . Here, the 12 sentencing court stated in relevant part that “[d]uring the period of incarceration, [Ms. Cargill] is 13 to make payments of $25.00 per quarter.” Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1 (copy of restitution portion of judgment 14 in underlying proceeding); see also Dkt. No. 7 at 7 (noting Ms. Cargill’s enrollment in the IFRP); 15 United States v. Cargill, Case No. 2:17-cr-00356-RDP-JHE, Dkt. No. 282 at 6. Therefore, the BOP 16 has the authority to create a financial plan for Ms. Cargill through the IFRP and to impose penalties 17 if she fails to accept its terms. Lemoine, 546 F.3d at 1046 ; see also 28 C.F.R. §§ 545 .10–545.11. 18 While the Court is sympathetic to Ms. Cargill’s claims regarding the economic realities of life 19 while incarcerated, she has not provided a basis for habeas relief. 20 III. CONCLUSION 21 The Court, having reviewed Ms. Cargill’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 22 U.S.C. § 2241 , the R&R, Ms. Cargill’s objections, and the remaining record, hereby finds and 23 ORDERS: [24] 1 1. The Report and Recommendation is approved and ADOPTED AS MODIFIED, 2 Dkt. No. 6. 3 2. Grounds One through Three of Ms. Cargill’s federal habeas petition challenging 4 her conviction and sentence, Dkt. No. 1 at 6–7, are DISMISSED for lack of 5 jurisdiction. 6 3. Ground Four of Ms. Cargill’s federal habeas petition challenging her IFRP 7 participation, id. at 8 , is DENIED. 8 4. Ms. Cargill’s emergency motion to cease enforcement of the restitution order, Dkt. 9 No. 4, is DENIED. 10 5. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send copies of this Order to Ms. Cargill and to Judge 11 Peterson. 12 Dated this 18th day of September, 2023. 13 A 14 Lauren King United States District Judge