Paul Driggers v. Maureen Cruz, 740 F.3d 333

Driggers challenges IFRP, a BOP program rewarding payment of court-ordered obligations with privileges.
IFRP requires minimum $25 quarterly payment and provides a $75 monthly deduction for a phone system after meeting minimums.
Nonpayment can place inmates in IFRP ‘refuse’ status with various penalties (furlough denial, reduced incentives, housing status, etc.).
Driggers began 120-month sentence in May 2007 for murder-for-hire; by 2010 he failed to make $25 quarterly payments and was placed in refuse status.
He petitioned under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 alleging violations of First Amendment access to courts, equal protection, and due process; district court denied.
Court affirms district court; IFRP upheld as reasonably related to penological interests and no due process liberty interest violated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does IFRP refuse status violate access to courts?	Driggers argues access is impeded by IFRP penalties.	BOP argues no actual injury, no violation of access rights.	No, no actual injury shown; access claim failed.
Does the IFRP facially discriminate against indigents in violation of equal protection?	Driggers asserts wealth-based classification harms indigent inmates.	BOP contends no suspect class; rational relation to legitimate penological interests.	Constitutional under rational basis; no equal protection violation.
Do the IFRP refuse consequences implicate protected liberty interests?	Driggers claims deprivation of liberty due to refuse status.	IFRP terms are discretionary; no entitlement to benefits; not a liberty interest.	No due process violation; no entitlement to benefits; not atypical hardship.

Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (Supreme Court, 1977) (inmates must have reasonably adequate opportunities to present claims)
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (Supreme Court, 1996) (actual injury required for access-to-courts claim)
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (Supreme Court, 1987) (regulation must be reasonably related to penological interests)
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (Supreme Court, 1996) (equal protection scrutiny and classifications)
Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (Supreme Court, 1977) (indigence alone not a suspect class)
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (Supreme Court, 1995) (liberty interests depend on atypical and significant hardship)
Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (Supreme Court, 2005) (liberty interests may arise from state policies)
Dorman v. Thornburgh, 955 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir., 1992) (prison regulations generally do not create due process rights)
Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir., 2008) (IFRP reasonably related to rehabilitation and restitution)
Johnpoll v. Thornburgh, 898 F.2d 849 (2d Cir., 1990) (IFRP related to legitimate government objectives)
James v. Quinlan, 866 F.2d 627 (3d Cir., 1989) (IFRP supports rehabilitation and financial responsibility)
Duronio v. Gonzalez, 293 F. App’x 155 (3d Cir., 2008) (due process considerations in prison regulations)
Davis v. Wiley, 260 F. App’x 66 (10th Cir., 2008) (prison program penalties assessed for nonparticipation)
United States v. Warmus, 151 F. App’x 783 (11th Cir., 2005) (appellate treatment of prison program consequences)