UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
United States of America
v. Criminal No. 14-cr-074-01-LM
Opinion No. 2017 DNH 207
Joshua Fields
O R D E R
On December 1, 2016, the court issued an amended judgment
for defendant Joshua Fields on his conviction for possession of
a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Fields
has since appealed his sentence. The amended judgment included
an order requiring the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) to “destroy any
and all copies of Mr. Fields’s original [Presentence Report
(“PSR”)] within its possession and reclassify Mr. Fields based
on the new PSR and without reference to any portion of the
original PSR.” Doc. no. 31-1 at 2-3. The order was intended to
correct Fields’s erroneous classification as a sex offender,
which the BOP had imposed as a result of an error in the
original PSR.
Fields has now filed a motion for contempt against the BOP,
alleging that the BOP has continued to use his original PSR and
has retained his sex offender classification. The government
objects. For the following reasons, Fields’s motion is denied.1
1 To the extent that Fields’s motion includes a request for
a hearing on the matter, see doc. no. 42 at 2, the court denies
The government argues that the motion should be denied for
three reasons: (1) the court does not have jurisdiction over the
case as a result of Fields’s appeal; (2) the proper vehicle for
Fields’s complaint is 28 U.S.C. § 2241; and (3) Fields’s claim
lacks merit. See doc. no. 45 at 1-2. Although the court is not
persuaded by the government’s first two arguments, it agrees
that Fields has not carried his burden on the merits.
Generally, “the filing of a notice of appeal divests the
district court of jurisdiction over matters related to the
appeal.” Acevedo-Garcia v. Vera-Monroig, 368 F.3d 49, 58 (1st
Cir. 2004). “But that principle has no bearing on a court's
power to hold a party in contempt for violating a court order
related to execution on a judgment.” Id.; see also United
States v. Hurley,
63 F.3d 1, 23 (1st Cir. 1995) (noting that a
district court may “act in aid of execution of a judgment that
has been appealed but not stayed”). Therefore, the court
retains jurisdiction to enforce its order while the appeal is
pending.
his request. Fields does not suggest that he will provide
additional evidence to the court. See Hawkins v. Dep’t of
Health & Human Servs. For N.H., Comm’r,
665 F.3d 25, 36 (1st
Cir. 2012) (“Where the moving party fails to indicate that it
possesses new material evidence that it wishes to present to the
court, an evidentiary hearing is not required.”).
2
Nor has the government shown that Fields was required to
bring his complaint through a separate action under 28 U.S.C. §
2241. Although an individual may seek relief “from the manner
of execution of a sentence” by way of a § 2241 action, Muniz v.
Sabol,
517 F.3d 29, 33-34 (1st Cir. 2008), the government cites
no authority for the proposition that the alleged violation of a
court order must be litigated through such an action simply
because it relates to a defendant’s conditions of confinement.
Rather, this court has the “inherent power to enforce
compliance with [its] lawful orders through civil contempt,”
Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370 (1966), and it
may invoke that power to “protect the due and orderly
administration of justice and . . . maintain the authority and
dignity of the court,” Goya Foods, Inc. v. Wallack Mgmt. Co.,
290 F.3d 63, 78 (1st Cir. 2002) (internal brackets omitted).
Thus, the court may properly consider Fields’s motion and, if
necessary, enforce compliance with its prior order through its
civil contempt power. See Agtuca v. Reed, No. CV-86-331-RHW,
2006 WL 2009050, at *2 (E.D. Wash. July 17, 2006) (declining to
classify motion for contempt as one seeking habeas relief,
because “[p]etitioner is not seeking relief from an alleged
infringement of his constitutional rights; he is merely seeking
enforcement of an order issued by the Court”).
3
Nevertheless, on the merits, the court cannot conclude that
Fields has satisfied his burden of establishing that the BOP
violated the order. “A district court may issue a civil
contempt order if the moving party establishes by clear and
convincing evidence that the alleged contemnor violated the
order despite clear and unambiguous notice of the order and the
ability to comply with it.” AngioDynamics, Inc. v. Biolitec AG,
780 F.3d 420, 426 (1st Cir. 2015).
The government has provided two BOP forms showing Fields’s
classification—one based on the original PSR and one compiled
after the court issued its amended judgment and order. The
former displays a sex offender classification, while the latter
does not. Compare doc. no. 45-1, with doc. no. 45-2. This is
strong evidence that the BOP has complied with the court’s order
and reclassified Fields based on the new PSR.
By comparison, Fields offers the following evidence to
support his motion: (1) a sentence monitoring computation form,
which shows his new sentence but still references his now-
vacated sentencing enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924; (2) an
email exchange between Fields and the BOP regarding the
calculation of his sentence; (3) the results of a FOIA request
pertaining to his sex offender classification; and (4) an inmate
profile form that he apparently obtained from his FOIA request,
4
which contains redactions of information compiled for law
enforcement purposes which could reasonably be expected to
endanger the life or physical safety of any individual, 5 U.S.C.
§ 552(b)(7)(F). See doc. nos. 42-2, 42-3, 42-4, 42-5. Unlike
the express references in the government’s exhibits, none of
this evidence explicitly shows that the BOP is continuing to
classify Fields as a sex offender. Even if it provides some
circumstantial evidence supporting Fields’s claim, in light of
the evidence proffered by the government, the court cannot
conclude that Fields has demonstrated a violation of the court’s
order by clear and convincing evidence. See AngioDynamics,
Inc.,
780 F.3d at 426.
Accordingly, the motion for contempt (doc. no. 42) is
denied.
SO ORDERED.
__________________________
Landya McCafferty
United States District Judge
September 22, 2017
cc: Seth R. Aframe, Esq.
John J. Farley, Esq.
Thomas F. McCue, Esq.
U.S. Probation
U.S. Marshal
5
