NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROYLAND RICE, No. 21-16200
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00649-JAM-CKD
v.
PAUL THOMPSON, Warden, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Royland Rice appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment summarily dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1
Rice’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is granted.
novo, see Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011), we
vacate and remand.
Rice’s § 2241 petition alleges that, after he received a $1,200 stimulus
payment pursuant to the CARES Act, the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) violated his
due process rights when it sought to increase the monthly restitution payments he
makes through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program. The district court
construed these allegations as pertaining to Rice’s conditions of confinement and
determined he should have raised them in a civil rights action. However, Rice’s
challenge is to the execution of the restitution award, which is properly raised in a
§ 2241 habeas petition. See United States v. Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir.
2008) (reviewing denial of a § 2241 petition challenging the execution of a
restitution award); Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000)
(“[P]etitions that challenge the manner, location, or conditions of a sentence’s
execution must be brought pursuant to § 2241 in the custodial court.”).
Accordingly, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.
We express no opinion as to the merits of Rice’s claims or as to whether he
has exhausted those claims. Rice’s motions for appointment of counsel and for an
injunction requiring the BOP to terminate his refusal status are denied without
prejudice to renewal before the district court.
VACATED and REMANDED.
2 21-16200