# Jordan v. United States > District Court, District of Columbia · August 25, 2010 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2665412 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, District of Columbia - **Decided:** August 25, 2010 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Judges:** Judge John D. Bates - **Nature of suit:** Civil - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2665412 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - 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]" ## Opinion text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2665412. Public record. Not legal advice.