William J.R. Embrey, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

The United States et al., 

Respondents. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Civil Action No. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

JAN L 3 lUW 

Clerk, U.S. District ana 

Bankruptcy Courts 

10 0171 

Petitioner William Embrey has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a 

pro se "Petition for a Permanent Injunction against Each of the Named Respondents." The 

application will be granted and the petition will be dismissed. 

Embrey is a prisoner under sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Missouri. He is currently incarcerated at the Federal correctional institution 

in Ashland, Kentucky. In a submission styled a ''''Petition for a Permanent Injunction," and 

emphasizing that it "does not attack [Embrey's] conviction or his sentence[,]" Embrey asks this 

Court to order "both the United States and its Attorney General and their agents to refrain from 

continuing their imprisonment" of him. Pet. at 1. Appending a transcript of his guilty plea 

colloquy, Embrey asserts that the United States never established one of the elements of the 

offense to which he pled guilty. See id. at 5-6. 

" [ A] s a matter of Congressional intent, prisoners mounting a challenge to the lawfulness 

of their custody are to proceed by means of habeas." Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 

809 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Embrey is a prisoner mounting a challenge to the lawfulness of his 
custody; indeed, his bald assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, the petition is a collateral 

attack on his conviction and sentence. As such, it must first be exhausted as a motion under 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 lodged with the sentencing court; only thereafter, and only if the prisoner can 

show that the remedy under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective, the challenge can be made under 

28 U.S.C. § 2241 as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus lodged in the district court that has 

personal jurisdiction over the prisoner's immediate custodian. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Wilson v. 

Office o/Chairperson, Dist. o/Columbia Bd o/Parole, 892 F. Supp. 277,279 (D.D.C. 1995) 

("[A] decision on a § 2255 motion is ordinarily required before a federal court will entertain a 

habeas petition."); Chatman-Bey, 864 F.2d at 810 "[A] district court may not entertain a habeas 

corpus action unless it has personal jurisdiction over the custodian of the prisoner. ... It is also 

well settled that the appropriate defendant in a habeas action is the custodian of the prisoner.") 

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also slip op., Embrey v. Cauley, Civil 

Action No. 09-cv-78-HRW, 2009 WL 3586253 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 28,2009) (advising Embrey of his 

remedies and noting his history of abuse of the remedies in the district courts in the Fifth, Sixth, 

Seventh and Eighth Circuits, as well as the District of Columbia). As this Court does not have 

jurisdiction over either a motion filed by Embrey under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or a petition filed by 

Embrey for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Embrey's petition will be dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

A separate order of companies, this memorandum opinion. 

Date:~ I If

J )..OJ 0 United 

(]L; States DiStrict ~~-Judge ~ 

- 2 -