Benjamin Tillman v. H. Rios, Jr.

MEMORANDUM

Federal prisoner Benjamin Tillman appeals pro se from the district court’s judg ment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Tillman first contends that the district court erroneously dismissed his claim that his procedural due process rights were violated with respect to the January 6, 2010 incident. We need not decide whether the district court properly concluded that this claim is not cognizable in habeas because the record shows that Tillman was afforded the minimal procedural requirements of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-68 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974).

Second, Tillman contends that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) violated a court order by seeking to have him pay a fine at a higher rate than was ordered by the sentencing court in order to participate in the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP). This contention is foreclosed. See United States v. Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042,1050 (9th Cir.2008) (it is “within the BOP’s discretion to condition the receipt of privileges under the IFRP on [the inmate’s] acceptance of the terms of its financial plan”).

Third, Tillman contends that…