TRINGHAM v. PONCE (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Robert Tringham appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We review de novo, see United States v. Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

The record reflects and the parties agree that, beginning in June 2017 and in accordance with Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2012), the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) exempted Tringham's restitution obligation from collection. As the district court correctly found, Tringham's challenge to the BOP's collection of his restitution obligation through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (“IFRP”) is, therefore, moot. See Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F.3d 996, 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2005) (habeas petition moot when the injury alleged cannot be redressed by a favorable judicial decision). Furthermore, contrary to his contention, Tringham has no preexisting right to benefits conditioned on his participation in the IFRP. See Lemoine, 546 F.3d at 1046. Finally, Tringham's request for reimbursement of the funds previously deducted from his prison wages is not cognizable in a habeas proceeding. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 494, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973).

Tringham's remaining claims are outside the scope of this appeal.

AFFIRMED.