stating that an attack on the constitutionality of the statute under which defendant was convicted and sentenced is properly pursued by motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
How later courts described this case
- stating that an attack on the constitutionality of the statute under which defendant was convicted and sentenced is properly pursued by motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
- stating that the sentencing court is the only court with jurisdiction to hear defendant’s complaint regarding errors that occurred before or during sentencing
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JOHN JOE OBREGON, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 08-542 (RBW)
)
MICHAEL MUKASEY et al., )
)
Respondents. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner, a prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution in Fort Worth, Texas, seeks a
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting that the judgment of conviction entered
against him June 6, 2005, by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas is
invalid due to ineffective assistance of counsel and that court’s defective jurisdiction. See
Petition (“Pet.”) at 6-8, 11-12. This court will dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Habeas review of a federal conviction is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which
provides that:
An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is
authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to [§ 2255] shall not be entertained
if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for [§ 2255] 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. See Taylor v. United States Board of Parole, 194 F.2d 882, 883 (D.C. Cir.
1952) (stating that an attack on the constitutionality of the statute under which defendant was
convicted and sentenced is properly pursued by motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255); Ojo v.
Immigration & Naturalization Service, 106 F.3d 680, 683 (5th Cir. 1997) (stating that the
sentencing court is the only court with jurisdiction to hear defendant’s complaint regarding errors
that occurred before or during sentencing). A remedy under § 2255, however, “is not considered
inadequate or ineffective simply because § 2255 relief has already been denied.” Charles v.
Chandler, 180 F.3d 753, 756 (6th Cir. 1999).
Here, petitioner has neither acknowledged nor denied that he has already filed a § 2255
motion in the court that sentenced him. In any case, it is clear that he was at one time eligible to do
so, and he has not demonstrated that the remedy by motion under § 2255 is inadequate or
ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Petitioner is simply incorrect in his assertion that
“[t]he Legislative-Territorial Court wherein the issue now complained [of] arose[] lacks the
Constitutional authority to entertain and to adjudicate the issue herein[,] thus a § 2255 motion is
inadequate and inappropriate.” Pet. at 8. The court that sentenced petitioner has jurisdiction to
hear§ 2255 motions and is not a “Legislative-Territorial Court.” Petitioner’s recourse with regard
to his conviction lies with the court that sentenced him. Because this court cannot entertain this
petition, it will be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.
REGGIE B. WALTON
United States District Judge
-2-