UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C OU RT F O R T H E D IS T R IC T O F C O LU M B IA

_______________________________________ ) DAL E SCOTT HEI

NEMAN, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Ci vi l A cti on No. 09 -05 82 (P L F) ) L I ND A SA ND ERS , ) ) Re sp on de nt. ) _______________________________________)

MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON In this action for a

writ of habeas corpus , petitioner, a f eder al prisoner , challeng es his “illeg al conviction” a

nd “illeg al sentenc e” imposed by the United States District Court for the Norther n District of California. Pet. at 1-2. Petitioner claims, amongother g rounds for issuing the wr it, that he is i nn oc e nt, the se nte nc ingc ourt la c ke d ju ri sd ic tio n a

nd the ind ic tme nt f

a ile d to alleg e a f eder al cr ime. He a lso challeng es the e ffe ctiveness of his attorney s during the cr iminal proce eding s. For the following rea sons, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petition and there fore will dism iss the case

.

A c oll a te ra l c ha lle ng e to a jud g me nt o f c onvic tio n e nte re d b y a fe de ra l c ourt

mus t be purs ue d und e r 2 8 U .S. C. § 22 55 , w hic h p ro vid e s in re le va nt p art : (a) A p ri soner in custody under se ntence of a c ourt established by Act of Congr ess claimingthe rig ht to be rele ased u p o n the g round that the sente nce w as imposed in violation of the Constit ution or laws of the United States, or that the cour t wa s w ith out juri sd ic tio n to imp os e su c h s e nte nc e , o r t hat th e se nte nc e wa s in

e xce ss of the maximum authorized by law, or is other

wise subject to collatera l attack, may move the cour

t which imposed the sentenc e t o vacate, set aside or corr ect the sentenc e. . . . (e ) An a

pplication for a

writ of habe as cor

pus in behalf of

a prisoner wh o is a uth or ize d to a

pp ly fo r r e lie f b y

mot ion purs ua

nt to [28 U. S.C. § 2 25 5], s ha ll not be enter

tained if it a

ppear s that the applicant has failed to a pply for reli ef

, by2

motion, to t he cour

t which sentenc ed him, or t hat s uch court has denied him relief, un le ss i t a lso a

pp e ars that the re me dy by mot ion is ina de qu a te or ine ff e c tiv e to t e st the leg ality

of his detention. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Bec ause the petitioner wa s convicted a nd sentenc ed in the Nor

thern District of California, that court has subjec t matter jurisdiction over this petition, and it is the only court in whic h th is p e tit ion e r’ s mo tio n to va c a te may be he ard . 2 8 U .S. C. § 22 55 ; see Taylor v. U nited Sta te s B oa rd of Par ole , 194 F.2d 882, 883 ( D.C. Cir. 1952) (whe re pe titioner attacke d constitutionalit y

of the statute unde r which he was c onvicted and se ntence d, proper reme dy was by motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255); Ojo v. Im migration & Naturali zation Service , 106 F.3d 680, 6 8 3 (5 thC i r. 1 9 9 7 ) ( s en t en ci n g co urt i s th e o n l y co urt wi thj uri s d i ct i o nt o h ea r d ef en d an t 's complaint reg ardingerr ors that occ urre d befor e or dur ing se ntencing ).

Pe tit ion e r “ be lie ve s th e 22 55 mot ion to t he Court of or ig ina l pr oc e e din g s [w ou ld be] a fra ud beca use . . . [t] he orig inal [court] is a cre ation of the same void, invalid, never lawfully proce ssed pape rs” that a lleg edly wer e cr eate d or provided by the par ticipants of the criminal proc eeding s. Pet. at 5. This claim liberally rea d as a c halleng e to the leg itimacy of the sentenc ing c ourt is simpl y frivolous. See, e .g., Rogers v. U nited States District Cour t for the Northern Distri ct of Tex., Dallas Division , No. 06-5214, 2006 WL3498294 (D.C. Cir., Nov. 13, 2006) (“ The district cour

t corre ctly

conclude d that appellant’ s complaint [challeng ing the status of the Nor

thern District of T exas as an Ar ticle I I Icourt] is frivolous.”). Petitioner has not shown that hi s Se c tio n 2 25 5 r e me dy in t he c ourt that se nte nc e d h im i s in a de qu a te or ine ff e c tiv e to t e st the leg ality

of his detention. The Court ther efor e conc ludes that this action must be dismis sed for lack of jurisdiction. An appropriate Orde r ac companies this Memora ndum Opinion. /s/___________________________ PAULL . FRI EDMAN Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge DATE: Apr il 2, 2009