Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02770/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02770-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Frank Edward Vann, )

)

 Petitioner, )

)

 v. ) CV 05-2770-PHX-DGC (MS)

)

C.T. Derosa, )

)

 Respondent. ) O R D E R )

I. Background

Petitioner Frank Edward Vann, presently confined in the Federal Correctional Institution in

Phoenix, Arizona, has filed with the Clerk of Court a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner has paid the $5.00 filing fee. Petitioner raises three

grounds challenging the propriety of his federal conviction and sentence, imposed by the United

States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The Court will dismiss the petition.

II. Discussion

A motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the appropriate method for

challenging a federally imposed conviction or sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; United States v.

Hayman, 342 U.S. 205, 217 (1952); Tripati v. Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1162 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,

488 U.S. 982 (1988). A § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus is not a substitute for a motion

under § 2255. McGhee v. Hanberry, 604 F.2d 9, 10 (5th Cir. 1979). 

A prisoner authorized to apply for § 2255 relief may not bring a § 2241 petition for a writ of

habeas corpus 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

Case 2:05-cv-02770-DGC--MEA Document 6 Filed 07/13/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. 28 U.S.C. § 2255; United

States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir. 1997). The burden of coming forward with evidence

affirmatively showing the inadequacy or ineffectiveness of the § 2255 remedy rests with the

petitioner. McGhee, 604 F.2d at 10. 

Here, Petitioner challenges the legality of his federal conviction in the Western District of

Oklahoma. These claims can be raised in a § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Tripati, 843 F.2d

at 1162. Accordingly, Petitioner is precluded from raising his claims in a habeas petition pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Because a § 2255 motion may be brought only in the sentencing court, this

petition will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Tripati, 843 F.2d at 1163.

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition and this action are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and

the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 13th day of July, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-02770-DGC--MEA Document 6 Filed 07/13/06 Page 2 of 2