UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
October 14, 2009
JOHN JOE OBREGON, PETITIONER,
MICHAEL MUKASEY ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reggie B. Walton United States District Judge
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.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.