United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Northern Division, Ashland
HAROLD D. HOLLADAY, JR., Petitioner,
J. C. STREEVAL, Warden, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
R, WILHOLT. JR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
inmate Harold D. Holladay, Jr. has filed a. pro se
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 to challenge the Bureau of Prison's deduction
of funds from his inmate account to satisfy his obligations
under an order of forfeiture entered in his criminal case.
[D. E. No. 1] This matter is before the Court to conduct an
initial review of the petition as required by 28 U.S.C.
November 2012, Holladay and twenty other persons were charged
in Little Rock, Arkansas with federal drug and firearms
offenses for their participation in a large-scale
methamphetamine trafficking ring. As part of a plea
agreement, Holladay agreed to forfeit his interest in $1
million in drug proceeds. In April 2014 the trial court
sentenced Holladay to 262 months imprisonment (later reduced
to 183 months). The trial court further entered an order of
forfeiture directing Holladay to "forfeit to the United
States a sum of money in the amount of $1, 000, 000.00, which
represents the proceeds obtained as a result of the
drug-trafficking offense charged in Count 1 of the Second
Superseding Indictment." The order of forfeiture
provided that such obligation became "part of the
sentence and included in the judgment" entered in favor
of the United States. United States v. Holladay, No.
4: 12-CR-306-KGB-2 (E.D. Ark. 2012).
indicates that after his prison term began the BOP started
deducting funds from his inmate account pursuant to its
Inmate Financial Responsibility Program ("IFRP") to
satisfy his obligations under the order of forfeiture. See
BOP Program Statement 5380.08 (Aug. 15, 2005). When Holladay
filed inmate grievances regarding the matter, the BOP
responded that the trial court's order of forfeiture
"was a collection order issued by the court and in order
to stop or alter this order it will be necessary that this
[be] done through the court of record." See [D. E. No.
1-2 to 1-5]
petition, Holladay alleges that the funds in his inmate
account are not derived in any way from the drug trafficking
activities for which he was convicted. He further contends
that funds in his inmate account are not subject to
forfeiture unless the United States obtains a court order
permitting it to seize "substitute assets" pursuant
to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p)(1), (2). [D. E. No. 1 at Page ID
Court finds this argument to be without merit. First, as the
BOP pointed out in response to Holladay's inmate
grievances, these funds were withdrawn pursuant to his
voluntary participation in the IFRP. 28 C.F.R. §§
545.10, 545.11. Holladay signed an agreement with the BOP to
withdraw a modest $25.00 from his account every three months.
[D.E. No. 1-5 at Page ID # 17] Those funds are used to make
partial payments on court-ordered fines, penalties, and
obligations while incarcerated. 28 C.F.R. § 545.11(a).
If a prisoner wishes to terminate withdrawals from his inmate
account because he finds such payments too onerous, he need
only cease participation in the IFRP. Program Statement
5380.08 at pp. 14-15. The deduction of funds from
Holladay's inmate account is therefore not attributable
to actions of the BOP over which he has no control, but is
instead the consequence of his voluntary participation in the
the trial court in Holladay's case did not direct the
forfeiture of particular assets, instead entering a general
personal judgment against him for $1 million. United
States v. Holladay, No. 4: 12-CR-306-KGB-2 (E.D. Ark.
2012) [D. E. No. 565 therein]. Under such circumstances, an
order of substitution is not required because the forfeiture
is not directed towards specifically-identified assets which
must first be traced and discovered by the government;
instead, the forfeiture is directed towards general assets of
the defendant. In this case, the order directed Holladay to
forfeit "... a sum of money in the amount of $1, 000,
000.00 ..." [D. E. No. 562 therein]
similar case, an inmate argued in a § 2241 petition that
his income from a prison job and family contributions was
"not subject to collection [through the IFRP] on a
forfeiture order against specific currency under 21 U.S.C.
§ 853(a), and that the government is required to seek a
substitution of assets under 21 U.S.C. § 853(p) if it
wants to collect a general money judgment..." The court
acknowledged that "[t]he strict language of
[§853(p)(1), (2)] might suggest that a request for
substitution of property would be warranted in order to
establish a right to future income." But the court
nonetheless denied relief, noting that seven of the federal
circuit courts of appeal, including the Sixth Circuit, have
held in published decisions that "a personal money
judgment may be used to collect on a criminal forfeiture
order." United States v. Bryant, No. 4;I4CV246,
2014 WL 7335181, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 19, 2014) (citing
United States v. Hampton, 732 F.3d 687, 691-92 (6th
Cir. 2013)). See also Esquivel v. Warden FCI-Estill,
No. C/A 4:15-cv-4114-TMC-TER, 2016 WL 4414827, at *4-5
(D.S.C. Apr. 29, 2016) (upholding collection of forfeiture
obligation through IFRP). The Court finds the reasoning of
these cases persuasive, and thus that the BOP has acted
properly in collecting funds from Holladay's inmate
account consistent with his voluntary participation in the
it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Petitioner Harold Holladay's petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [D. E. No. 1]
2. This action is DISMISSED and
STRICKEN from the Court's docket.
3. Judgment shall be entered contemporaneously with this
Memorandum Opinion and Order.