Fawley v. Lujan-Grisham
2:20-cv-01236
| D.N.M. | Jan 30, 2023Background
- Petitioner Benjamin Fawley is a Virginia inmate serving an Alford-plea murder sentence in New Mexico custody since 2009 and has litigated multiple prior habeas and § 1983 actions.
- Fawley alleges New Mexico Corrections Department (NMCD) makes payroll deductions (CVD deductions) from his prison wages under New Mexico statutes and NMCD policy, transmitting funds to the New Mexico Crime Victims Reparation fund.
- He filed a pro se amended § 2241 petition claiming the deductions violate due process, constitute retroactive criminal punishment (Ex Post Facto), breach the Interstate Corrections Compact/plea agreement, and invalidate his conviction; he sought vacatur of his conviction and immediate release.
- The Court limited review to the amended § 2241 petition (Doc. 3) and denied voluminous supplemental filings as noncompliant with Rule 8.
- The Court dismissed the petition without prejudice under Habeas Corpus Rule 4, holding (1) portions of the petition reassert successive § 2254 claims and are jurisdictionally barred, (2) the CVD deductions do not show custody in violation of federal law for § 2241 relief, and (3) the requested relief (release/vacatur) has no nexus to the alleged improper deductions.
- The Court also denied a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Successive habeas challenge to conviction | Fawley contends his plea/conviction is invalid and seeks vacatur/release | Respondents implicitly assert these claims are successive § 2254 claims and this court lacks jurisdiction | Court: Claims that challenge conviction/sentence are successive § 2254 claims; dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction |
| § 2241 "in custody" jurisdiction | Deductions from wages render custody unlawful under federal law | Deductions are not the sort of restraint affecting custody for § 2241 purposes | Court: Withholdings are not a significant restraint on liberty; § 2241 jurisdiction not satisfied |
| Due process / Takings / Ex Post Facto challenge to wage deductions | Deductions taken without hearing, constitute retroactive punishment and breach compact/plea | Deductions are authorized by N.M. statutes/policy, are not criminal punishment, and do not create a protected liberty interest | Court: CVD deductions do not violate Due Process, Takings, or Ex Post Facto; prior Tenth Circuit authority rejects these claims |
| Remedy nexus: release/vacatur vs monetary relief | Overpayment/withholding voids judgment, entitling Fawley to release | Respondents: wage deductions affect property, not duration of custody; habeas relief (release) inappropriate | Court: Even if deductions improper, habeas relief under § 2241 cannot be granted because the challenged action did not affect duration of custody; dismissal warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Tansy, 13 F.3d 404 (10th Cir. 1993) (prisoner has no protected liberty interest in full amount of prison wages)
- Erlandson v. Northglenn Mun. Ct., 528 F.3d 785 (10th Cir. 2008) (payment of restitution or fine, absent more, does not satisfy federal habeas "in custody" requirement)
- Rosales v. Milyard, [citation="541 F. App'x 874"] (10th Cir. 2013) ("in-custody" language is jurisdictional for habeas relief)
- Spitznas v. Boone, 464 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2006) (substance of pleading, not title, determines whether it asserts successive § 2254 claims)
- In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2008) (factors for transfer vs. dismissal of successive habeas petitions)
- Clark v. New Mexico Dep't of Corr., [citation="58 F. App'x 789"] (10th Cir. 2003) (CVD wage deductions do not violate Due Process or Takings Clause)
- United States v. Visinaiz, 428 F.3d 1300 (10th Cir. 2005) (restitution is not criminal punishment in the Tenth Circuit)
- California Dep't of Corr. v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499 (1995) (ex post facto clause targets laws that retroactively alter crimes or increase punishment)
- Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37 (1990) (ex post facto prohibition applies only to penal statutes that disadvantage the offender)
- Satterfield v. Scibana, [citation="275 F. App'x 808"] (10th Cir. 2008) (§ 2241 relief available only if challenged state action affected duration of custody)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for certificate of appealability)
- Fawley v. Jablonski, [citation="832 F. App'x 575"] (10th Cir. 2021) (affirming dismissal of similar successive habeas claims)
- Fawley v. GEO Group, Inc., [citation="543 F. App'x 743"] (10th Cir. 2013) (rejecting due process challenge to NMCD wage deductions)