515 F. App'x 252
5th Cir.2012Background
- Nutalls convicted of conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery, interference with commerce by robbery, and using a weapon during a crime of violence.
- District court ordered restitution of $28,378; this Court affirmed convictions and Supreme Court denied certiorari; §2255 motions denied on appeal.
- Nutalls moved to reduce restitution, arguing UNICOR wage deductions and the prison financial-responsibility program left them with little money.
- District court amended judgment to cap restitution at $30 per month.
- Correctional staff indicated Raymond earned $1,780.81 in six months and had other deposits; court noted Nutalls must follow prison policies and could resign UNICOR to avoid the cap.
- Nutalls filed §2241 petitions alleging prison officials violated the district court’s cap; district court removed cap and denied §2241 petitions; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the cap create a protected property interest? | Nutalls claimed cap conferred entitlement to fixed $30. | Bulger holds no protected interest in prison jobs; cap not entitling. | No protected property interest established. |
| Did sua sponte removal of the cap deny due process? | District court alteration violated due process | Court could adjust payments under 18 U.S.C. 3664(k) given changed circumstances | Due process not violated; no protected interest shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 F.3d 564 (U.S. 1972) (established that property interests require legitimate entitlement)
- Bulger v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 65 F.3d 48 (5th Cir. 1995) (prisoner not entitled to ongoing UNICOR employment as a property interest)
- Eubanks v. McCotter, 802 F.2d 790 (5th Cir. 1986) (inmate accounts may be protected, but not wages in this context)
- Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209 (5th Cir. 2000) (review standard for district court rulings in this context)
- Ky. Dept. of Corr. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1989) (procedural due process requires showing a protected liberty or property interest)