United States v. Ketelsen

Martin Reidinger

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's "Motion to Clarify Restitution Order, as Stated in Judgment & Commitment, Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3231; 3572(d)(3)" [Doc. 38] and Defendant's "Motion to Clarify Defendant's Institutional Payment Schedule" [Doc. 39].

In his motions, the Defendant challeges the restitution payments that he is required by the Bureau of Prisons to make through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP). [Docs. 38, 39].

The Bureau of Prisons has the authority to place the Defendant in the IFRP based on the wording contained in the Criminal Judgment. See United States v. Watkins, 161 F. App'x 337, 337 (4 Cir. 2006); Bramson v. Winn, 136 F. App'x 380, 381 (1 Cir. 2005). Before seeking relief from any court regarding obligations under the IFRP, a defendant must exhaust all administrative remedies through the Bureau of Prisons. McGhee v. Clark, 166 F.3d 884, 887 (7 Cir. 1999). Once all administrative remedies have been exhausted, a defendant may challenge such payments only by filing the appropriate pleading in the district court located in the district of confinement, not the sentencing court. See Moore v. Olson, 368 F.3d 757, 759 (7 Cir. 2004); Matheny v. Morrison, 307 F.3d 709, 711-12 (8 Cir. 2002).

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant's motions to alter the restitution payments that he is required to make through the IFRP [Docs. 38, 39] are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________

Martin Reidinger

United States District Judge