McGee v. Martinez
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24625
| 3rd Cir. | 2010Background
- McGee, a federal inmate, was sentenced in the Western District of Michigan to 120 months and a $10,000 fine, payable from prison earnings at $20 per month with remaining balance due after release.
- McGee alleged that his prison earnings were only $5.25 per month and that the IFRP restrictions impeded his ability to pursue habeas relief from the underlying conviction.
- At McKean FCI he agreed to the IFRP terms of paying at least $25 per quarter in exchange for certain privileges and protections; after transfer to Allenwood, the payment demand rose to $75 per quarter.
- McGee refused the increased quarterly payments, was placed on IFRP refusal status, and faced related commissary and housing restrictions, with disciplinary recommendations in 2008 for noncompliance.
- McGee filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging the IFRP payment schedule and related sanctions as violations of his sentence terms.
- The district court dismissed the petition as a civil-rights claim (1983/Bivens) rather than a habeas action; McGee appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition should be heard as habeas or as a civil rights action | McGee contends the challenge targets execution of his sentence via IFRP. | Martinez argues the claim concerns conditions of confinement, a 1983/Bivens matter. | Habeas under §2241 proper; IFRP constitutes execution of sentence. |
| Whether the IFRP and related refusals are part of execution of sentence | IFRP payments and refusals enforce a financial obligation and affect confinement. | IFRP-related sanctions are merely confinement conditions not tied to execution. | Yes; IFRP and sanctions are part of execution of McGee's sentence, feasible under §2241. |
Key Cases Cited
- Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532 (3d Cir. 2002) (core habeas test: challenge to execution, not to collateral confinement)
- Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480 (3d Cir. 2001) (habeas jurisdiction for challenges to execution of sentence)
- Woodall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2005) (execution vs. confinement distinctions in § 2241 cases)
- United States v. Diggs, 578 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2009) (IFRP challenges belong in § 2241)
- Matheny v. Morrison, 307 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 2002) (IFRP challenges concern execution of sentence)