UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

DARRELL LAMONT BAILEY, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS, 

Respondent.

 Civil Action No. 18-848 (RDM) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Petitioner is a federal prisoner who is currently incarcerated at the United States 

Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado. In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Bailey alleges that 

his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) is invalid and that the sentencing court had no 

jurisdiction over his case. Dkt. 1 at 2–3. He also alleges that he was improperly sentenced for 

having violated 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) because, in his view, that section requires that the defendant 

have been convicted of violating both 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b), yet he was 

convicted for a violation of only 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Id. Finally, although difficult to follow, 

he also appears to allege that “clerks” unlawfully served as “de facto judges” in handling various 

aspects of his case. Id. at 4 (“Clerks did paperwork,” “chambers of Judges sent” or “[r]eturned 

. . . filings”). 

Bailey’s legal theories are not pellucid. It is clear, however, that he seeks the invalidation 

of his previous convictions. Id. at 5. Such a challenge, however, must be brought under 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 in the court that imposed the sentence. Day v. Trump, 860 F.3d 686, 691 (D.C. 

Cir. 2017) (describing § 2255 as “ordinarily the sole remedy for a federal prisoner challenging 

the legality of his conviction or sentence”); see also 28 U.S.C. §2255(a) (“A prisoner in custody 
2 

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 that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence . . . may move the court 

which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.”). 

Although courts often transfer habeas petitions that have been filed in the wrong district, 

doing so here would serve no purpose, because Bailey cannot file another petition under § 2255 

without appellate court authorization. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (“A second or successive motion 

must be certified as provided by in section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals 

. . . .”); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (“Before a second or successive application permitted by this 

section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals 

for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.”); Burton v. Stewart, 549 

U.S. 147, 157 (2007) (holding that district courts lack jurisdiction to consider “second or 

successive” petitions under § 2244 when petitioners have not first obtained authorization from 

the relevant court of appeals); United States v. Bailey, No. 94 C 6832, 1995 WL 302441, at *10 

(N.D. Ill. May 16, 1995) (denying a previous petition brought under § 2255 challenging Bailey’s 

original conviction and sentence). 

The Court will, accordingly, DENY Bailey’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Dkt. 1. 

A separate order will issue. 

/s/ Randolph D. Moss 

RANDOLPH D. MOSS 

United States District Judge 

Date: April 18, 2018