stating that a motion under Section 2255 is the proper vehicle for Bivens recognized a cause of action for damages against federal officials acting under color of their authority who violate a claimant's constitutional rights. ----------------------------------- challenging the constitutionality of a statute under which a defendant is convicted
How later courts described this case
- stating that a motion under Section 2255 is the proper vehicle for Bivens recognized a cause of action for damages against federal officials acting under color of their authority who violate a claimant's constitutional rights. ----------------------------------- challenging the constitutionality of a statute under which a defendant is convicted
- holding that an attack on the constitutionality of the statute under which the defendant was convicted and sentenced his suit could not “be used as a substitute for appeal, nor to compel” the federal goverment “to exercise powers” outside of its purview, and noting that plaintiff’s claims must be raised through 28 U.S.C. § 2255
- holding that an attack on the constitutionality of the statute under which the defendant was convicted and sentenced could not “be used as a substitute for appeal, nor to compel” the federal goverment “to exercise powers” outside of its purview, and noting that plaintiff’s claims must be raised through 28 U.S.C. § 2255
- stating that a motion l Bz`vens recognized a cause of action for damages against federal officials acting under color of their authority who violate a claimant’s constitutional rights. / / /V under Section 2255 is the proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of a statute under which a defendant is convicted
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PER CURIAM.
Motions have been made in behalf of appellees (defendants below) to affirm the judgments below upon the ground that each appeal is without merit. The attorney as
*883
signed by this court to represent appellant, a prisoner confined in the Medical Center for .Federal Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri, also advises the court to like effect.
In 11108 the complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. See opinion of this court in McCann v. Clark, 1951, 89 U.S.App.D.C. -, 191 F.2d 476 . Moreover, as the complaint apparently seeks a declaratory judgment concerning matters which do not present an actual controversy it clearly fails to state a- cause of action. 28 U.S.C. § 2201 ; Doehler Metal Furniture Co. v. Warren, 1942, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 60 , 129 F.2d 43 .
In 11109 complainant seeks by mandamus to obtain his transfer from the Medical Center .at Springfield to an ordinary penal institution upon the ground that he was illegally transferred to the Center and is now illegally detained there. Mandamus will not lie. It cannot be used as a substitute for habeas corpus. McMurtrey v. Clark, 1946, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 294 , 157 F.2d 703 , certiorari denied, 1947, 329 U.S. 805 , 67 S.Ct. 492 , 91 L.Ed. 687 . Nor will habeas corpus lie in the District of Columbia, for the complainant is not confined within the territorial jurisdiction of its courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ; Ahrens v. Clark, 1948, 335 U.S. 188 , 68 S.Ct. 1443 , 92 L.Ed. 1898 ; McAffee v. Clemmer, 1948, 84 U.S. App.D.C. 57, 171 F.2d 131 , certiorari denied, 1949, 337 U.S. 932 , 69 S.Ct. 1485 , 93 L.Ed. 1739 . Cf. Johnson v. Matthews, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 376 , 381, 182 F.2d 677 , 682, certiorari denied, 1950, 340 U.S. 828 , 71 S.Ct. 65 , 95 L.Ed. 608 .
In 11153, complainant also seeks through injunction proceedings to test the validity of his detention at Springfield by attacking the constitutionality of the statute under which he was convicted and sentenced. However, his suit cannot be used as a substitute for appeal, nor to compel the Attorney General to exercise powers which do not belong to him. McMurtrey v. Clark, supra. Furthermore, the proper remedy, if any, is by way of habeas corpus or Title 28, § 2255, United States Code, which would not lie in this jurisdiction. McAffee v. Clemmer, supra. See Martin v. Hiatt, 5 Cir., 1949, 174 F.2d 350 .
The motion to affirm is granted in each case.