Harris v. Barnes
- Susan Nelson
- 0:18-cv-01424
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Harris v. Barnes, Judge Nelson denied Harris’s habeas petition, overruled her objection, and dismissed the action without prejudice.
Melissa Harris’s challenge to the retroactive application of Sentencing Guidelines amendments and to the timing and enforceability of her restitution obligations was denied. The action was dismissed without prejudice; the opinion does not otherwise specify the effect of that dismissal.
What happened
Melissa Harris challenged her prison sentence and restitution obligations through a petition asking the court to review her custody. She argued that changes to the Sentencing Guidelines should apply to her sentence and that she should not have to make restitution payments until after release. Harris represented herself.
The court rejected both arguments. It said the Guidelines changes Harris appeared to rely on were not retroactive, and that a restitution obligation did not challenge her custody and therefore could not generally be raised through this type of petition. The court also found no basis for exceptional relief concerning restitution.
Judge Susan Richard Nelson considered Harris’s late objection, overruled it, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and denied the petition. The court also dismissed the action without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Harris v. Barnes · No. 0:18-cv-01424
- Susan Nelson
- Nov. 16, 2018
Background
Melissa Harris, appearing without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal procedure that can be used to challenge certain aspects of a person’s custody. Harris had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States and related offenses and received a 102-month prison sentence. The sentencing judgment also required more than $1 million in restitution, payable in monthly installments equal to 10 percent of her gross monthly income during and after imprisonment.
Harris had previously raised the same issues in an unsuccessful petition in the federal court where she was sentenced. She then filed this case in the District of Minnesota. A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition. The district court initially adopted that recommendation because Harris had not filed objections, but later agreed to consider her late-filed objection.
Analysis
Harris argued that changes to the Sentencing Guidelines should apply to her sentence. The court noted that she did not identify the specific amendment she relied on, but considered Amendments 791 and 792 as the most plausible possibilities. It held that neither amendment was retroactive and therefore concluded that Harris could not use those changes to obtain relief from her final sentence.
Harris also argued that she should be allowed to delay her restitution payments until after her release from prison. The court held that a restitution obligation does not challenge custody and therefore cannot be challenged through a § 2241 petition. It added that, even if such a challenge could be brought this way, Harris had not shown either that the restitution obligation was unlawful or that exceptional circumstances justified relief.
Disposition
After conducting a new review of the portions of the recommendation Harris challenged, Judge Susan Richard Nelson overruled Harris’s objection and adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in its entirety. The court denied Harris’s § 2241 petition and dismissed the action without prejudice.
Classification note
This is classified as mixed because the court reached the merits of Harris’s argument about the Sentencing Guidelines, while treating the restitution challenge as outside the proper scope of a § 2241 petition and also finding no basis for exceptional relief.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.