Fultz v. McClintock, 4:14-cv-02293

Petitioner Mario Denane Fultz is a federal inmate at FCI Safford, serving sentences imposed January 10, 1994, that included concurrent robbery terms and consecutive § 924(c) firearm terms, plus a restitution obligation totaling $123,622.00.
Petitioner filed a pro se § 2241 habeas petition challenging BOP collection of his court-ordered restitution while incarcerated. He contends (1) the restitution is time-barred under the 20-year VWPA limitation and (2) the sentencing court impermissibly delegated authority to BOP to set repayment schedule via the IFRP.
The matter was referred to a magistrate judge who substituted the current warden as respondent and recommended denial of the petition.
The Court found jurisdiction proper under § 2241 because the challenge concerns execution/collection of the sentence, not its legality, and the petition was filed in the custodial court.
The court declined to dismiss for lack of administrative exhaustion, finding exhaustion futile given the existence of BOP IFRP policy.
On the merits, the court relied on Ninth Circuit precedent: (a) the MVRA’s extension of collection time applies to pending cases and does not extinguish restitution imposed under the pre-1996 VWPA, and (b) under the VWPA the sentencing court’s delegation of timing to BOP was permissible and IFRP is an appropriate voluntary collection mechanism.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Statute of limitations for restitution lien	Fultz: restitution is time-barred under 20-year VWPA limitation; BOP lacks authority to collect	BOP: MVRA amendments and Ninth Circuit precedent allow continued collection; liability persists	Denied — MVRA/Blackwell reasoning means liability continues and BOP may collect
Applicability of MVRA to pre-1996 sentence	Fultz: MVRA not retroactive; his restitution governed by pre-1996 VWPA	Respondent: MVRA’s remedial change to collection period applies; does not create new substantive rights	Denied — restitution liability continues; MVRA’s remedial extension applies to collection context per Ninth Circuit
Delegation of payment-scheduling to BOP/IFRP	Fultz: sentencing court failed to set repayment schedule; delegation to BOP is impermissible	Respondent: under VWPA and Ninth Circuit precedent courts may delegate timing; IFRP is proper and voluntary	Denied — delegation under VWPA was permissible; IFRP is appropriate method for collection
BOP authority to set payment amounts/rates via IFRP	Fultz: BOP lacks authority to demand more than $25 quarterly	Respondent: BOP may offer incentives and set higher repayment through IFRP; Ninth Circuit upholds such practices	Denied — BOP may encourage/require higher repayments via IFRP consistent with Lemoine

Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861 (9th Cir. 2000) (distinguishing § 2241 and § 2255 jurisdictional scope)
Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330 (9th Cir. 1991) (claims about execution of sentence maintainable under § 2241)
United States v. Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2008) (IFRP is voluntary and BOP may impose repayment incentives and penalties)
Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2012) (under MVRA district court must set restitution schedule; BOP lacks authority when sentencing court failed to do so under MVRA—but MVRA applicability is limited)
United States v. Blackwell, 852 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2017) (MVRA’s amendment extending collection period is remedial and can apply to pending cases, preserving government’s collection authority)
United States v. Gunning, 339 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2003) (district court ultimately responsible for restitution schedule under MVRA)
Montano-Figueroa v. Crabtree, 162 F.3d 548 (9th Cir. 1998) (sentencing courts may delegate timing/method of restitution under VWPA)