United States District Court, D. Maine
ORDER AFFIRMING ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR A FINDING OF
A. WOODCOCK, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Court overrules a Defendant's objection to a Magistrate
Judge's order in which the Magistrate Judge declined to
hold a Bureau of Prisons witness in contempt of court for
allegedly false sworn statements. The Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge that the Defendant has no standing to
proceed against an individual under a criminal statute and
that the Defendant failed to demonstrate that the
witness' statements were false. Furthermore, the Court
concludes that the witness' statements were not material
to any issue before the Court.
September 25, 2017, James Stile filed a motion asking this
Court to hold Sharonne Malloy, a counsellor with the United
States Bureau of Prisons, in contempt of court for having
made allegedly perjurious statements in an affidavit the
United States submitted in response to Mr. Stile's motion
for the sentencing court to set the restitution amount.
Notice of Mot. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1623
(ECF No. 668). On October 11, 2017, the United States
responded. Opp'n by United States of Am. in
Resp. to Def.'s Mot. for Contempt Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1623 (ECF No. 671). Mr. Stile replied on
November 1, 2017. Reply Mem. (ECF No. 675).
November 6, 2017, the Court referred the motion to the
Magistrate Judge, and on February 6, 2018, the Magistrate
Judge issued an order in which he denied the motion.
Order on Def.'s Mot. for Contempt (ECF No. 686).
On February 26, 2018, Mr. Stile objected to the Magistrate
Judge's order. Def.'s Obj. Filed in Accordance
with Rule 59 (ECF No. 688). On March 12, 2018, the
Government responded. Gov't's Resp. in Opp'n
to Def.'s Obj. to Magistrate Judge's Order on Mot.
for Contempt (ECF No. 690). During this time, Mr. Stile
filed a motion with the Magistrate Judge for reconsideration
of the order denying his motion for contempt. Mot. for
Recons. (ECF No. 689). On March 21, 2018, the Magistrate
Judge denied Mr. Stile's motion for reconsideration.
Order on Def.'s Mot. for Recons. (ECF No. 691)
motion Mr. Stile filed on July 28, 2017, he made a number of
claims regarding the Court's order of restitution found
in the sentencing judgment. Mot. for Sentencing Ct. to
Set Restitution Payment Amount (ECF No. 651). In his
motion, Mr. Stile contended that he was being “punished
by the Federal Bureau of Prisons for his failure to meet a
payment schedule amount that is unreasonable and impossible
for the Defendant to meet.” Id. at 1. He
stated that on July 13, 2015, he was “compelled to sign
a ‘Inmate Financial Plan”, which was “a
coercive instrument that[']s designed to threaten the
inmate into a payment plan regardless if he or she can comply
or not.” Id. at 2. Mr. Stile wrote that on
June 21, 2017, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) “presented
to the Defendant a notice that due to an inability to pay the
minimum payment established by the [BOP] and not the Court
($25.00 i ly) the Defendant was being placed
on FRP Refuse status.” Id. He complained that
BOP had sanctioned him in various ways for his refusal to
participate in the payment program. Id. at 3.
Government responded on August 30, 2017. Opp'n by
U.S. of America in Resp. to Defs Mot. Concerning Payment of
Restitution at 1-2 (ECF No. 663). Relying in part on a
sworn declaration signed by Ms. Malloy, the Government
recited Mr. Stile's payment history while in prison,
noting that he initially voluntarily participated in the
Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP) of the BOP,
agreeing to make $25 payments each quarter toward his $100
special assessment and his $13, 306.93 restitution
obligation. Id. at 5. The Government reported that
Mr. Stile actually made four $25 payments, after missing one
payment, and thereby paid off his $100 special assessment.
Id. Mr. Stile made only one more $25 payment, which
went toward restitution, leaving $13, 281.93 outstanding on
his restitution obligation. Id. He then was placed
in “Refuse Status.” Id. at 6.
Government also stated that even though Mr. Stile had only
$2.46 in his prisoner account when he filed his motion, on
July 31, 2017, $200 was deposited into his account, and by
August 14, 2017, he had withdrawn $120 from his account for
telephone and other costs, leaving a balance of $82.71, which
should have been available for restitution. Id.
Stile filed his reply on September 25, 2017. Def.'s
Reply to Opp'n by U.S. of America in Resp. to Def.'s
Mot. Concerning Payment of Restitution (ECF No. 667).
Mr. Stile further disputed the Government's view of his
current financial status. Id. at 8-10. Mr. Stile
explained that his friend Carlos Rojas provided him $200 per
month but stopped doing so due to Mr. Rojas' divorce.
Id. at 8. He said that the last payment he received
was on March 25, 2017 for $200. Id. He accused Ms.
Malloy of lying in her sworn declaration about the state of
his personal account. Id. at 8-10. Later, he
mentioned a payment of $200 he received on August 25, 2017
from his aunt, most of which he said was “allocated to
telephone and TRULINGS to maintain a support system to
Defendant[']s mother in hospital . . . with the balance
of $82.71 paying PLRA payments.” Id. at 15. At
the same time, Mr. Stile agreed that if he were challenging
the IFRP, he would have been required to file a motion
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Id.
November 20, 2017, the Court denied Mr. Stile's motion.
Order on Mot. for Sentencing Court to Set Restitution
Amount (ECF No. 676) (Restitution Order).
Significantly, the Court did not address Mr. Stile's
complaints about the BOP's administration of the IFRP
fund because Mr. Stile expressly conceded that in order to
challenge the BOP's IFRP program, he was required to a
file a complaint in the district where he was housed, not
where he was sentenced. Id. at 10. The Court deemed
Mr. Stile's complaints about the BOP's administration
of the IFRP fund waived. Id. In a twenty-three page
opinion, the Court addressed the merits of Mr. Stile's
other arguments and rejected them but never reached his
initial contentions about the IFRP fund. Id. at
Magistrate Judge's order is on a non-dispositive matter,
the Court reviews the order to determine whether it is either
“contrary to law” or “clearly