Robert Neal v. Leann LaRiva
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17080
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Robert Neal, a federal prisoner serving a 327‑month sentence for wire fraud, was disciplined by prison officials for signing a court document under the alias “David J. Nelson,” in violation of the prison rule forbidding forging documents; his commissary and telephone privileges were revoked for 180 days.
- Neal filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 claiming denial of due process; the district court concluded the sanctions did not affect custody and denied relief under § 2241.
- While the habeas petition was pending, Neal repeatedly moved to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, submitting a purported arbitration agreement signed under his alias and alleging the Bureau of Prisons was bound to it.
- The submitted “arbitration agreement” was clearly fraudulent and rooted in irrelevant UCC language; the Bureau of Prisons denied any agreement existed.
- The district court denied Neal’s motions to compel arbitration and denied the § 2241 petition; Neal appealed but focused only on the arbitration argument.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejected Neal’s arbitration claims as baseless, noted his repeated misrepresentations and prior sanctions, imposed an additional fine, imposed a filing restriction in habeas matters until outstanding fees/sanctions are paid, ordered Neal to show cause about an Appellate Rule 38 sanction, and referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney to consider criminal prosecution for perjury.
Issues
| Issue | Neal's Argument | Bureau/Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a valid arbitration agreement binds the Bureau and covers Neal’s § 2241 claim | The submitted arbitration agreement (signed as David J. Nelson) binds both parties and covers the claim | No arbitration agreement exists; the document is fraudulent and irrelevant to BOP functions | No arbitration — district court did not abuse discretion; agreement is fabricated and unenforceable |
| Whether § 2241 relief is available for loss of commissary/telephone privileges | Sanction deprived him of due process requiring relief under § 2241 | Sanctions did not affect custody; § 2241 relief unavailable for non‑custodial penalties | Denial of § 2241 petition affirmed (loss of privileges not cognizable relief) |
| Whether the FAA applies to compel arbitration here | FAA requires enforcement of arbitration agreement | FAA applies only to maritime or interstate commerce contracts; the documents do not implicate those categories and are fraudulent | FAA inapplicable; no arbitrable contract exists |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Neal, [citation="294 F. App'x 96"] (5th Cir. 2008) (criminal conviction and sentence informing petitioner’s custodial status)
- Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (U.S. 1989) (§ 2241 relief unavailable where petitioner’s custody not affected)
- Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1984) (scope of the Federal Arbitration Act)
- Gore v. Alltel Commc’ns, LLC, 666 F.3d 1027 (7th Cir. 2012) (FAA and arbitration principles applied in Seventh Circuit)
- French v. Wachovia Bank, 574 F.3d 830 (7th Cir. 2009) (standard for district court’s discretion in refusing to compel arbitration)
- Support Sys. Int’l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995) (authority to restrict filings by vexatious litigants)
- Montgomery v. Davis, 362 F.3d 956 (7th Cir. 2004) (procedure for imposing filing restrictions in habeas contexts)