Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Castillo v. Office of Attorney General

United States District Court, District of Columbia

April 20, 2015

Jesus Arreola Castillo, Plaintiff,
v.
The Office of the Attorney General et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of this pro se action captioned "Civil Complaint Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, for Declaratory, Injunctive, or Prospective Relief and plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring dismissal of a prisoner's complaint upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted).

Plaintiff is a prisoner at the Federal Correctional Complex in Adelanto, California. He is serving a mandatory life sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana following his conviction of conspiracy to distribute more than 1, 000 kilograms of marijuana. See United States v. Arreola-Castillo, 539 F.3d 700 (7th Cir. 2008), post-conviction relief denied by Arreola-Castillo v. United States, Nos. 09-cv-1476, 05-64-cr-07, 2012 WL 5462754 (S.D.Ind. Nov. 7, 2012). In this action, plaintiff challenges the statute under which he was convicted on equal protection grounds.

"[I]t is well-settled that a [person] seeking relief from his conviction or sentence may not bring [actions for injunctive and declaratory relief]." Williams v. Hill, 74 F.3d 1339, 1340 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (citations omitted). Rather, such relief is available via a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Taylor v. U.S. Bd. of Parole, 194 F.2d 882, 883 (D.C. Cir. 1952) (stating that a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of a statute under which a defendant is convicted); Ojo v. I.N.S., 106 F.3d 680, 683 (5th Cir. 1997) (explaining that the sentencing court is the only court with jurisdiction to hear a defendant's complaint regarding errors that occurred before or during sentencing). Once a § 2255 motion has been adjudicated on the merits, as appears to be the case here, a subsequent motion for habeas relief must be presented to the appropriate court of appeals (here the Seventh Circuit) for permission to proceed in the sentencing court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(A). Plaintiff has stated no claim for relief in this court. A separate order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.