stating that "it is well-settled that a [person] seeking relief from his conviction or sentence may not bring [actions for injunctive and declaratory relief]"
How later courts described this case
- stating that "it is well-settled that a [person] seeking relief from his conviction or sentence may not bring [actions for injunctive and declaratory relief]"
- an attack on one's conviction and sentence is properly pursued by motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
- the sentencing court is the only court with jurisdiction to hear a defendant's complaint regarding errors that occurred before or during sentencing
- determining that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action because the remedy of habeas corpus was available in the location of the plaintiffs' custodian
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FILED
AUG 25 2010
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Clerk. U.S. District & Bankruptcy
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Courts for the District of Columbia
Brucestan T. Jordan, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 10 1439
)
United States et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter, brought pro se, is before the Court on its initial review of the complaint
accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the
application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution in Miami, Florida, seeks review
under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.c. §§ 701 et seq., of agency action
allegedly taken during his criminal prosecution in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee. He claims that but for defendants' acts, which allegedly included the filing
of two ex parte motions under seal and the withholding of evidence from plaintiff, "defendants
would not have received the judgment and sanctions that were awarded to [them]." CompI. at 4.
The sanctions awarded "include[] becoming 'perceived' in rem property of the UNITED
STATES," id., which apparently is how plaintiff views his imprisonment. Plaintiff seeks, among
other relief, the suspension of his sentence and of "[a]ny and all probation and/or supervised
release requirements." Id. at 6.
Because plaintiff is in essence challenging his conviction and sentence, his recourse lies, if
at all, in the procedures set forth at 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Taylor v. United States Board of
Parole, 194 F.2d 882, 883 (D.C. Cir. 1952) (an attack on one's conviction and sentence is
properly pursued by motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255); Ojo v. Immigration & Naturalization
Service, 106 F.3d 680,683 (5 th Cir. 1997) (the sentencing court is the only court with jurisdiction
to hear a defendant's complaint regarding errors that occurred before or during sentencing);
accord LoBue v. Christopher, 82 F.3d 1081, 1082-84 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (determining that the
district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action because the
remedy of habeas corpus was available in the location of the plaintiffs' custodian); Williams v.
Hill, 74 F.3d 1339, 1340 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (stating that "it is well-settled that a [person] seeking
relief from his conviction or sentence may not bring [actions for injunctive and declaratory
relief]") (citations omitted).
Section 2255 provides that:
[a] prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress
claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in
violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States ... or is otherwise
subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to
vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). Moreover,
[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is
authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to [28 U.S.C. § 2255], shall not
be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by
motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief,
unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test
the legality of his detention.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). Plaintiff has not shown that his available remedy is inadequate or ineffective
to test his detention. This Court therefore lacks jurisdiction over the claims. A separate Order of
dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: August l(p ,2010
2