Opinion

Banks v. Lappin

Court
District Court, District of Columbia
Filed
Jan 27, 2009
Status
Published
On the bench
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
Nature of suit
Civil
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 31.5%

The opinion

- FILED

JAN 2 7 2009

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT clerk u_s_ District and

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Bankrupt¢y courts

Frederick Banks, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. § Civi1 Action No. 4

Harry Lappin et al. , )

)

Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and his

application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application to proceed in

forma pauperis and dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Petitioner challenges his conviction entered in March 2006 by the United States District

Court for the Westem District of Pennsylvania after a trial for mail fraud. He asserts that the

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit misconstrued the facts and wrongly applied the law in his

case on direct criminal appeal. (Pet. at 5-6.)

Petitioner’s recourse for alleged wrongs occurring at trial is through a motion under 28

U.S.C. § 2255, which is the mandated vehicle for a collateral attack on a conviction and sentence

imposed by a federal court. See Taylor v. United States Board of Parole, 194 F.2d 882, 883

(D.C. Cir. l952) (attack on the constitutionality of the statute under which defendant was

convicted and sentenced is properly pursued by motion under 28 U.S.C. § 225 5); Ojo v.

Immigration & Naiuralizatiorz Service, lO6 F.3d 680, 683 (5th Cir. l997) (the sentencing court is

the only court with jurisdiction to hear defendant’s complaint regarding errors that occurred

before or during sentencing). An individual may be excused from pursuing relief under § 2255

only when it "appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of

his detention." 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Petitioner has not demonstrated that a remedy by motion

under § 2255 is inadequate or effective to test the legality of his detention.

Lacking jurisdiction to entertain the habeas petition, the Court will dismiss the case by

separate Order issued contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion.

@ZAA )<,Un mg

Da'f€f C}’NJ ' g ) °z’ob? United States D'is’trict Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.