ROBERT YBARRA V. DENNIS SMITH, No. 11-15874 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 19 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT YBARRA, No. 11-15874 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01447-DGC v. MEMORANDUM * DENNIS SMITH, Warden, FCI-Phoenix, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 17, 2012 ** Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Robert Ybarra appeals pro se from the district court s denial of his motion for contempt and for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Ybarra contends the district court abused its discretion by denying the motion because the Bureau of Prisons ( BOP ) violated the district court s December 21, 2010, order to stop collecting restitution payments through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program ( IFRP ). We review the denial of a motion for contempt for abuse of discretion. Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Corr., 869 F.2d 461, 464 (9th Cir. 1989). The record shows that the BOP began collecting restitution payments again after Ybarra voluntarily entered into a contract and agreed to participate in the IFRP. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for contempt. See United States v. Lemoine, 546 F.3d 1042, 1048 (9th Cir. 2008) ( [N]othing in the text of the statute or our prior decisions places any limits on the BOP s operation of an independent program, such as the IFRP, that encourages inmates voluntarily to make more generous restitution payments than mandated in their respective judgments. ). AFFIRMED. 2 11-15874

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.