Norwood v. Williams
1:18-cv-00874-RBK
D.N.J.Jul 12, 2023Background
- Michael Norwood robbed a bank in April 1996, was convicted, and sentenced on May 30, 1997; the judgment included $19,562.87 in restitution.
- In 2016 the government sought release of funds from Norwood’s inmate trust account to pay restitution.
- The Third Circuit held in 2022 that authorizing release of those inmate funds would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.
- Following that decision, on February 28, 2023 this Court amended Norwood’s criminal judgment to terminate any restitution obligation as of May 30, 2017.
- The Court also ordered the government to refund amounts taken from Norwood’s inmate account for restitution after May 30, 2017.
- Norwood had filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking an amended restitution judgment; after the criminal-judgment amendment the government argued the habeas petition was moot and Norwood did not respond to supplemental briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Norwood’s § 2241 petition seeking amendment of the restitution portion of his criminal judgment is moot | Norwood seeks an amended judgment terminating his restitution obligation | Moot — the criminal judgment has already been amended to end restitution as of May 30, 2017 and refunds ordered | Denied as moot; Norwood lacks a continuing personal stake |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Norwood, 49 F.4th 189 (3d Cir. 2022) (holding that authorizing release of inmate trust funds to satisfy restitution violated the Ex Post Facto Clause)
- Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142 (3d Cir. 2009) (discussing Article III case-or-controversy requirement and the need for a personal stake throughout litigation)
- Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472 (1990) (describing the case-or-controversy requirement)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) (holding plaintiff must show injury traceable to defendant and likely redressable to satisfy standing)