John Jose Watford v. Ricardo E. Chavez

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN JOSE WATFORD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
RICARDO E. CHAVEZ,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 09-15310
D.C. No. 4:08-cv-00080-RCC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
John Jose Watford appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying
his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and
2253, and we affirm.
FILED
JUL 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-15310 2
Watford contends the district court erred by concluding that his participation
in the Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) Inmate Financial Responsibility Program
(“IFRP”) was voluntary. He further contends the BOP is committing constructive
fraud by punishing him for not being able to make payments and by not allowing
him to cancel his payment plan. These contentions are unpersuasive because under
the IFRP, prison staff develop a financial plan for each inmate and monitor his
progress in adhering to the plan. 28 C.F.R. § 545.11. Moreover, “[a]n inmate is
free to decline to participate in the IFRP, but the failure either to participate or to
comply with a financial plan created pursuant to the program carries certain
consequences.” United States v. Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2008).
Thus, the district court did not err by rejecting Watford’s argument that his
participation in the IFRP was involuntary. See id. at 1046.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --