Chavis v. United States of America ( 2009 )

FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 1'2 aOf
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District and
Bankruptcy Courts
Herbert Chavis, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 09 1522
)
United States of America, )
)
Respondent. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus and
his application to proceed informa pauperis. The Court will grant the application to proceed in
forma pauperis and dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioner claims that the United States District Court for the Middle and Western
Districts of North Carolina ignored his "colorable innocence claims." Pet. at 5. A claim, such as
this one, challenging a judgment of conviction must be presented to the sentencing court by
motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Taylor v. United States Board of Parole, 194
F.2d 882, 883 (D.C. Cir. 1952) (motion under § 2255 is proper vehicle for challenging
constitutionality of statute under which defendant is convicted); Ojo v. Immigration &
Naturalization Service, 106 F.3d 680,683 (5 th Cir. 1997) (the sentencing court is the only court
with jurisdiction to hear defendant's complaint regarding errors that occurred before or during
sentencing). Section 2255 provides specifically that:
[a] prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress
claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in
violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States ... or is otherwise
subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to
vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.
28 U.S.c. § 2255(a). Moreover, the ability to challenge a conviction by a motion to vacate
sentence generally precludes a challenge by a petition for habeas corpus:
[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is
authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to [28 U.S.C. § 2255], shall not
be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for 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(e). Petitioner has not shown that his available remedy is inadequate or
ineffective.
Because this Court is not the sentencing court, see Pet. at 2, it is without jurisdiction to
entertain petitioner's claim. To the extent that petitioner is seeking review of his sentencing
court's denial of § 2255 relief, see Pet. at 3, his recourse lies presumably in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. A separate order of dismissal accompanies this
Memorandum Opinion.
Date: August ~, 2009
2