Tag Archives: inmate financial responsibility program

BOP Proposes Kinder, Gentler Money Grab – Update for December 30, 2024

Leave a comment

We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

BIG MONEY

Remember money160818two years ago, when the Federal Bureau of Prisons issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in response to the 20 inmates out of 150,000 plus who had big money in their commissary accounts? Of course you do, because you’ve read all 1,701 of the LISA Foundation’s posts.

But for those who came in late, in January 2023, the BOP responded to a Washington Post series that revealed that a few high-profile BOP inmates – serial gymnast molester Larry Nasser and sex predator R. Kelly – had very large inmate trust account sums while not paying restitution to victims. The Post reported that “20 inmate accounts [held] more than $100,000 each for a total exceeding $3 million,” but not necessarily that most or all of those people were shirking court-ordered payment obligations.

So 0.013% – that’s thirteen one-thousandths of a percent – of federal inmates had whopping inmate account balances, but not all of them necessarily owed any obligations for which the BOP could take their money. No matter. The BOP responded to this shocking situation by proposing an amendment to its rules that would require the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program to take 75% of anything inmates received from outside sources (such as family and friends) and to apply that seized money toward restitution, fines, child support, tax and other obligations.

Last week, the BOP showed a little Christmas spirit (or maybe common sense), issuing a Supplemental NPRM asking for comment on a softer standard. The agency now proposes a rule that would take none of your outside money if your commissary account is under $250.00; 25% if your account balance is $250.00 but under $1,000.00; 35% for accounts from $1,000.00 but under $2,500.00; 55% from $2,500.00 but under $5,000.00; and 100% of outside money when your balance is over $5,000.00.

IFRP-SNPRM241230Of course, an inmate may refuse to participate in the IFRP program, but doing so today denies an inmate anything more than about $5.00 a month pay for work, a severely limited commissary list from which to buy food and consumer goods, no RDAP “year off” credit, and no halfway house or home confinement (among other restrictions).

The Supplemental NPRM proposes adding to that list no FSA credit, meaning that an inmate would be stripped of the ability to take up to a year off his or her sentence and to get substantial amounts of halfway house or home confinement time.

The current limitations are listed in 28 CFR § 545.11.

paytheman240822The public may comment on the proposed rule by letter or electronic comments by February 18, 2025, through the regulations.gov website or by mail to:

Legislative & Correctional Issues Branch, Office of General Counsel, BOP, 320 1st Street NW, Washington, DC 20534.

Federal Register, Inmate Financial Responsibility Program: Procedures (December 17, 2024)

Forbes, New Rules on Federal Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (December 21, 2024)

– Thomas L. Root

Two IFP/FRP Cases Are Wins for Prisoners – Update for November 28, 2023

Leave a comment

1500th-231128We posted our first article on federal criminal justice issues on February 16, 2014, with no real idea where this might lead.  Today, we celebrate our 1500th post on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

MONEY, THAT’S WHAT I WANT

Two decisions last week ease the burden for prisoners seeking to get in forma pauperis (IFP) status in civil and criminal cases and to get Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (FRP) withholding changed.

moneythatswhat231128

IFP: First, an explainer. Court’s ain’t free. Even if you decide to represent yourself (largely, a stupid idea we’ll discuss some other time), there are fees and costs. Of course, the decision to go pro se (represent yourself instead of hiring a lawyer) is usually driven by necessity: if you don’t have any money, hiring a mouthpiece is hardly an option.

Federal courts grant in forma pauperis status to people who cannot afford the $402.00 district court filing fee or the $505.00 fee for filing a notice of appeal (and thus starting an appeal). To get IFPstatus, one must file an affidavit setting out income and expenses, assets and liabilities. It’s not automatic: sometimes the affiant has too much in the bank or makes too much. But, as you can imagine, for prisoners making $5.00 a month, IFP is a necessity if they have a civil action – a tort claim, a constitutional violation for crappy medical care, even an appeal of a 28 USC § 2255 motion – to bring.

Alex Rosa sued the Connecticut prison system in federal court, alleging he received constitutionally inadequate medical care. He applied for IFP status because he believed he couldn’t pay the $402 filing fee while paying for the “necessities of life.” The district court noted that Alex reported receiving $1,200 in federal COVID stimulus funds and had an average balance of about $600 over the last six months in his prison account. The district court noted that “[a]s a prisoner, Rosa does not pay for room or board” and could “discern no reason why requiring Rosa to pay the filing fee of $402 would force him to forego the necessities of life or abandon this action.” Rosa complained that he had to send money to his family, but the district court said “that funds Rosa chose to give his mother and son, even if for their essentials, could have instead been used to pay the filing fee in his suit.”

badjudge171016Last week, the 2nd Circuit reversed. An IFP motion “meets 28 USC § 1915(a)’s standard for grant when it demonstrates that the applicant cannot “pay or give security for the costs and still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life,” the Circuit ruled. To require IFP applicants to “have sworn to contribute to payment of costs the last dollar they have . . . and thus make themselves and their dependents wholly destitute would be to construe the statute in a way that would throw its beneficiaries into the category of public charges.”

IFRP: Criminal defendants are charged at minimum $100.00 for every count of conviction, the so-called special assessment. Beyond that, they are required to pay restitution for victims’ losses and, occasionally, fines and criminal forfeitures.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons runs the IFRP to force inmates to make regular payments toward their court obligations.  I am sure the BOP would quibble with my use of the word “force.” An inmate is not forced to participate, but if he or she refuses, the inmate will be denied FSA credits, will be reduced to being allowed to buy only a handful of items from the commissary, will be denied halfway house or home confinement, will not be able to earn more than a bare subsistence pay of a little more than $5.00 a month, will be housed in the lowest form of housing available, will not be allowed to work outside the fence even if he or she has the appropriate security and custody rating, and will not get a year off as incentive for completing the RDAP drug abuse program.  Read the list, starting at page 11 of the BOP Program Statement.

pooremptypockets231017Eric Sweatt is doing time for bank robbery. He had been paying into FRP while he was working UNICOR, but he got sick and was sent to a BOP medical facility, where – as a patient – he was not allowed to work. Eric declined FRP while he had no income, for which he was punished by BOP rules for FRP refusniks. He then filed a motion under 18 USC § 3664(k) to modify his judgment to halt his restitution payments until he recovered from surgery. If the court said Eric didn’t owe while incarcerated, the BOP could not force FRP on him.

The district court ruled it lacked authority to modify FRP payment plans. Earlier this month, the 7th Circuit reversed.

The 7th observed that Eric did not seek “to alter the fact or amount of restitution or to usurp the BOP’s exclusive authority to impose a pre-release payment plan. He requested only that the court adjust his ‘payment terms’ based on a change in his economic circumstances… In general, district courts lack jurisdiction to modify a sentence, but they can do so when authorized by statute… And as Sweatt pointed out, 3664(k) gives the district court the authority to do what he asked.”

Rosa v. Doe, Case Nos. 21-2628(L), 2023 U.S.App. LEXIS 30785 (2d Cir., Nov. 20, 2023)

United States v. Sweatt, Case No. 23-1752, 2023 U.S.App. LEXIS 29798 (7th Cir., Nov. 8, 2023)

– Thomas L. Root