Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

15-423 - CORNETT v. WARDEN


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
15-423 - CORNETT v. WARDEN
February 29, 2016
PDF | More
Entry Discussing Motion to Reconsider - His objection to the Court's treatment of the initial pleading and to the directions given to him 4 is therefore overruled. Cornett's demand for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus at this point 4 is therefore denied. He shall have through April 7, 2016 in which to supplement his petition for writ of habeas corpus be explaining in what manner he has been "forc[ed]" to pay his restitution through the IFRP and by specifying whether he seeks habeas corpus relief based on (1) the alleged failure of the Bureau of Prisons to issue a timely response to his administrative remedy requests or appeal(s) or (2) the collection of restitution through the IFRP--or both. (See Entry.) Copy to petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 2/29/2016.(RSF)
April 14, 2016
PDF | More
ENTRY Directing Further Proceedings - The petitioner, a federal inmate who seeks a writ of habeas corpus, was given through April 7, 2016 in which to supplement his petition for writ of habeas corpus by explaining in what manner he has been "forc[ed]" to pay his restitution through the IFRP and by specifying whether he seeks habeas corpus relief based on (1) the alleged failure of the Bureau of Prisons to issue a timely response to his administrative remedy requests or appeal(s) or (2) the collection of restitution through the IFRP--or both. To err on the side of caution, however, and avoid the substantial problem which would result if this Court proceeds and it is later determined that it did so without jurisdiction because of the interlocutory appeal, the petitioner shall have 30 days in which to seek a stay of proceedings in his Court until the appeal docketed as No. No. 16-1612 has been concluded. (See Entry.) Copy to petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 4/14/2016.(RSF)
August 2, 2016
PDF | More
Entry Dismissing Action and Directing Entry of Final Judgment - The petitioner, a federal inmate who seeks a writ of habeas corpus, was given a period of time in which to supplement his petition for writ of habeas corpus explaining in what manner he has been "forc[ed]" to pay his restitution through the IFRP and by specifying whether he seeks habeas corpus relief based on (1) the alleged failure of the Bureau of Prisons to issue a timely response to his administrative remedy requests or appeal(s) or (2) the collection of restitution through the IFRP--or both. The petitioner has responded with his filing of April 5, 2016, wherein he makes the wild contention that the administrative steps offered by and then taken by the BOP have unlawfully resulted in the issuance of a new judgment in his criminal prosecution. The petitioner's appeal from the Entry of February 29, 2016 denying his motion to reconsider the order of January 6, 2016 was docketed as No. 16-1612 and has just recently been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because of the absence of a final judgment. The mandate dismissing the appeal was issued on July 21, 2016. This ill-conceived interlocutory appeal, therefore, has consumed four months--more than half of the period from the filing of the action to the present. Cornett's habeas petition challenging the manner in which the IFRP is being applied to collect the financial obligations imposed as part of his sentence does not render that collection action unlawful in any fashion. Cornett's petition for writ of habeas corpus shows on its face that he is not entitled to the relief he seeks and that petition is denied. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Copy to Petitioner via US Mail. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 8/2/2016.(BRR)