Powers v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
699 F. App'x 795
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- John Jay Powers, a federal prisoner at USP-Florence, sued the BOP after the Bureau kept an encumbrance on his inmate trust fund to satisfy fines/restitution from disciplinary sanctions.
- Powers sought preliminary injunctive relief ordering the BOP to release encumbered funds so he could retain counsel, buy phone/email credits, and purchase postage/materials to communicate with counsel and pursue post-conviction and civil-rights claims.
- The district court construed Powers’ second amended complaint as asserting only a Sixth Amendment right-to-counsel claim and treated the requested relief as a mandatory preliminary injunction.
- The district court required a “strong showing” on likelihood of success and balance of harms for a mandatory injunction and denied Powers’ motion, finding he failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
- Powers appealed pro se; the Tenth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and, construing Powers’ brief liberally, identified three challenges but affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BOP’s encumbrance violates Sixth Amendment right to retain counsel | Powers: encumbrance prevents him from retaining counsel and communicating with counsel for post-conviction and civil suits | BOP: Luis inapplicable; Sixth Amendment protection for retained counsel doesn’t extend to convicted prisoners pursuing post-conviction or civil matters | Held: No. Powers failed to show likelihood of success; Luis doesn’t apply to convicted prisoners seeking post-conviction counsel. |
| Whether relief requested is a mandatory injunction and required standard | Powers: relief should not be treated as mandatory (argues otherwise) | BOP/District Court: Relief requires affirmative action (release of funds), so it’s a mandatory injunction requiring a strong showing | Held: Yes mandatory; district court properly applied the strong-showing standard. |
| Whether Powers established irreparable harm from encumbrance | Powers: negative balance prevents access to counsel and court communications, causing irreparable harm | BOP: records show he can access writing materials, postage, and purchase credits despite encumbrance | Held: Court did not decide irreparable harm because Powers failed on likelihood of success; factual record supports BOP’s position that basic access exists. |
| Whether appellate review should be waived for inadequate briefing | BOP: Powers’ briefing is inadequately developed, so issues are waived | Powers: pro se status; later replies cured some defects | Held: Court exercised discretion to review arguments despite initial briefing deficiencies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Att'y Gen. of Okla. v. Tyson Foods, 565 F.3d 769 (10th Cir. 2009) (distinguishes mandatory and prohibitory injunctions and standards)
- RoDa Drilling Co. v. Siegal, 552 F.3d 1203 (10th Cir. 2009) (definition of mandatory injunctions requiring affirmative action)
- O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 973 (10th Cir. 2004) (mandatory injunction requires a strong showing on likelihood of success and balance of harms)
- Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for denial of preliminary injunction)
- Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987) (right to appointed counsel extends only to first appeal of right)
- Beaudry v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 331 F.3d 1164 (10th Cir. 2003) (no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in civil cases)
- Luis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1083 (2016) (pretrial restraint of untainted assets needed to retain counsel of choice can violate Sixth Amendment)
- Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005) (pro se litigants may waive appellate issues via inadequate briefing)