ROBERT TRINGHAM V. FELICIA PONCE, No. 18-55468 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 22 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT TRINGHAM, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-55468 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-08145-SJO v. MEMORANDUM* FELICIA PONCE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 19, 2019** Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. 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 * 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). 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 (1973). Tringham’s remaining claims are outside the scope of this appeal. AFFIRMED. 2 18-55468

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.