Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00623/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00623-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

1

17cv0623 LAB (JLB)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DERRYL TYRONE FOSTER,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Case No.: 17cv0623 LAB (JLB)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Motion to Vacate his 

sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He seeks to challenge his San Diego Superior 

Court conviction for robbery. (See Pet. at 1, ECF No 1.) 

Under § 2255:

A prisoner in custody under a 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 

that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the 

sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, 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.

Case 3:17-cv-00623-LAB-JLB Document 2 Filed 04/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17cv0623 LAB (JLB)

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

By its very language, § 2255 applies to federal prisoners challenging sentences 

imposed by the federal courts. Specifically, a prisoner in custody under sentence of a 

federal court who wishes to collaterally attack the validity of his conviction or sentence 

must do so by way of a motion to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence under § 2255 in 

the sentencing court. Broussard v. Lippman, 643 F.2d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 1981). 

Alternatively, a district court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf 

of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that 

he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States” 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 

(1975). 

Therefore, to the extent Petitioner wishes to challenge his state court conviction, he 

must do so under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 Accordingly, Court DISMISSES the petition 

without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 6, 2017 _________________________________

 Larry Alan Burns

 United States District Judge

 

1 The Court declines to construe the document as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has previously filed a petition under § 2254 with this Court, in which he 

challenged the same state court conviction. The petition was dismissed as successive on March 3, 2017. 

(See Civil. Case No. 17cv0019 AJB (JLB) (ECF No. 4).) 

Case 3:17-cv-00623-LAB-JLB Document 2 Filed 04/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2