Cooper v. Holder ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                            FILED
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                                  MAY 2 2 2012
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA                          Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
    Courts for the District of Columbia
    Billy D. Cooper,                              )
    )
    Plaintiff,                     )
    )
    V.                                     )      Civil Action No.       12 0821
    )
    Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General,           )
    )
    Defendant.                     )
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and 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 an inmate at the United States Penitentiary Hazelton in Bruceton Mills, West
    Virginia, suing under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 
    403 U.S. 388
     (1971), to challenge the constitutionality ofthe statutes under which he was convicted.
    The gravamen of the complaint is that the sentencing court, the United States District Court for
    the Southern District of Mississippi, lacked jurisdiction over plaintiffs criminal prosecution.
    Because the success of plaintiffs claim would necessarily void his conviction, plaintiff
    cannot recover monetary damages, which is the only available remedy under Bivens, without first
    showing that he has invalidated the conviction by "revers[al] on direct appeal, expunge[ment] by
    executive order, declar[ation of invalidity] by a state tribunal authorized to make such
    determination, or ... a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus." Heck v. Humphrey,
    
    512 U.S. 477
    , 486-87 (1994); see, e.g., Taylor v. US. 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 (5 1h 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).
    Plaintiff has not shown the invalidation of his conviction and, thus, has failed to state a
    claim upon which relief can be granted under Bivens. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies
    this Memorandum Opinion.
    United States District Judge
    Date: May   j_l_, 2012
    2