1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

AL C. TOOKS,

 Petitioner

v.

SHERIFF OF COUNTY OF 

KIMBLE, TEXAS,

 Defendant

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

 A-20-CV-537-RP-SH

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TO: THE HONORABLE ROBERT PITMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court are Al C. Tooks’ (“Petitioner”) “Petition Pursuant All Writs Act for Issuance 

of Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum” under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, filed May 18, 2020 (Dkt. 1), 

and “Petitioner’s Motion to Strike Clerk of Court and/or Clerk’s Office of the United States District 

Court’s Presentment Dated: May 18, 2020,” filed June 8, 2020 (Dkt. 6). On May 18, 2020, the 

District Court referred this case to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for disposition and Report 

and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and 

Rule 1, Appendix C of the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. 

I. BACKGROUND

On September 1, 2015, Petitioner, a Florida resident, was indicted in the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of Florida on two counts of possession with intent to distribute a 

controlled substance (ethylone), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). United States v. Tooks, 0:15-

cr-60216-CMA-1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 1, 2015). After pleading guilty to Count Two of the Indictment, 

the Southern District of Florida sentenced Petitioner to a 151-month term of imprisonment, three 

years of supervised release, a $100 special assessment fee, and an order of forfeiture. Id. at 

Case 1:20-cv-00537-RP-SH Document 7 Filed 06/15/20 Page 1 of 6
2

Dkt. 44.1 Petitioner is in custody at Federal Correctional Institution Fort Dix (“FCI Fort Dix”), 

Joint Base MDL, New Jersey. 

Petitioner did not file a direct appeal of his conviction and sentence, but did file a motion to 

vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and 

that the “District Judge that imposed [his] sentence did not take the oath of office required by the 

Constitution” and therefore was without authority to exercise jurisdiction over Petitioner. See 

Tooks v. United States, 0:17-cv-60573-CMA (S.D. Fla. Mar. 20, 2017). On January 9, 2019, the 

District Court denied the § 2255 Motion entered a final judgment against Petitioner. Id. at Dkt. 21.

In addition to his § 2255 Motion, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, where he is 

incarcerated, arguing that he is actually innocent of the offense to which he pled guilty – possession 

with intent to distribute a controlled substance (ethylone) – because of the recent decision of the 

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Phifer, 909 F.3d 372 (11th Cir. 2018). Tooks 

v. Warden, FCI Fort Dix, 1:19-cv-16330-NLH (D.N.J. Aug. 5, 2019). The Court has not yet ruled 

on the petition under § 2241.

In his “Petition Pursuant All Writs Act for Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad 

Subjiciendum,” Petitioner argues that he has been “unlawfully restrained of his liberty and 

unlawful conversion of his property by executive seizure under color of law of Texas.” Dkt. 1 at 

1. Petitioner appears to attack the legality of the traffic stop in Texas and subsequent seizure of 

drugs that led to his conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Petitioner also complains that he is 

being exposed to COVID-19 at FCI Fort Dix and asks to be released from custody immediately.

1 Although Petitioner is a Florida resident, the drugs were discovered during a traffic stop in Kimble County, 

Texas. The Western District of Texas also indicted Petitioner under § 841(a)(1), but later granted the 

government’s motion to dismiss the indictment “to allow for the Southern District of Florida to pursue its 

case.” United States v. Tooks, A-15-CR-259-LY (W.D. Tex. Sept. 15, 2015), Dkt. 7 at 1.

Case 1:20-cv-00537-RP-SH Document 7 Filed 06/15/20 Page 2 of 6
3

II. ANALYSIS

The Court is without jurisdiction to entertain this Petition.

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only 

that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be 

expanded by judicial decree. It is to be presumed that a cause lies 

outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the 

contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U. S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). Article 

III, § 2 of the United States Constitution delineates “[t]he character of the controversies over which 

federal judicial authority may extend.” Ins. Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 

456 U.S. 694, 701 (1982). 

Jurisdiction of the lower federal courts is further limited to those 

subjects encompassed within a statutory grant of jurisdiction. Again, 

this reflects the constitutional source of federal judicial power: 

Apart from this Court, that power only exists “in such inferior 

Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” 

Id. (quoting U.S. CONST. art. III, § 1). Accordingly, “the district courts may not exercise 

jurisdiction absent a statutory basis.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U. S. 546, 

552 (2005).

Petitioner asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to the 

All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). See Dkt. 1 at 3. Section 1651(a) provides that: “The Supreme 

Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate 

in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 

Although the Supreme Court has held that the All Writs Act may 

authorize a court to issue commands “as may be necessary or 

appropriate to effectuate and prevent the frustration of orders it has 

previously issued in its exercise of jurisdiction otherwise obtained,”

almost 200 years of Supreme Court precedent establishes that the 

Act, originally enacted as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, cannot 

serve as an independent basis of jurisdiction.

Case 1:20-cv-00537-RP-SH Document 7 Filed 06/15/20 Page 3 of 6
4

Texas v. Real Parties In Interest, 259 F.3d 387, 392 (5th Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. N.Y.

Tel., 434 U.S. 159, 172 (1977)). Section 1651(a) “is not an independent grant of jurisdiction.” In 

re McBryde, 117 F.3d 208, 220 (5th Cir.1997); accord Renteria-Gonzalez v. INS, 322 F.3d 804, 

811 (5th Cir. 2002). Thus, the All Writs Act empowers district courts “only to issue writs in aid of 

jurisdiction previously acquired on some other independent ground.” Brittingham v. U.S. Comm’r, 

451 F.2d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1971). Petitioner has not asserted an independent ground for this 

Court’s jurisdiction. Moreover, “[t]he All Writs Act is a residual source of authority to issue writs 

that are not otherwise covered by statute.” Pennsylvania Bureau of Corr. v. United States Marshals 

Serv., 474 U.S. 34, 43 (1985). Thus, the Supreme Court has explained:

Where a statute specifically addresses the particular issue at hand, it 

is that authority, and not the All Writs Act, that is controlling. 

Although that Act empowers federal courts to fashion extraordinary 

remedies when the need arises, it does not authorize them to issue 

ad hoc writs whenever compliance with statutory procedures 

appears inconvenient or less appropriate.

Id.; see also Carlisle v. United States, 517 U.S. 416, 429 (1996) (noting that “it is difficult to 

conceive of a situation in a federal criminal case today where [a writ of coram nobis] would be 

necessary or appropriate”).

Here, Petitioner has alternative means of relief apart from reliance on a writ under § 1651(a)

and thus may not rely on its extraordinary remedies. Both 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

offer Petitioner statutory remedies to challenge his confinement and sentence. A § 2241 petition 

attacks the manner in which a sentence is carried out or the prison authorities’ determination of its 

duration, and must be filed in the same district where the prisoner is incarcerated. Pack v. Yusuff, 

218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). A § 2255 motion, by contrast, provides the primary means of 

collateral attack on a federal sentence, and must be filed in the sentencing court. Id. “Relief under 

section 2255 is warranted for errors cognizable on collateral review that occurred at or prior to 

Case 1:20-cv-00537-RP-SH Document 7 Filed 06/15/20 Page 4 of 6
5

sentencing.” Id. (quotations omitted). The fact that Petitioner may, and has, pursued relief under

§§ 2255 and 2241 means that relief under § 1651(a) is not available to him. Pennsylvania Bureau 

of Corr., 474 U.S. at 43.

In addition, this Court cannot construe this Petition as a petition under § 2241 because 

“[d]istrict courts are limited to granting habeas relief ‘within their respective jurisdictions.’” 

Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a)). The Supreme Court 

has “interpreted this language to require nothing more than that the court issuing the writ have 

jurisdiction over the custodian.” Id. (citations omitted). In order to “entertain a § 2241 habeas 

petition, the district court must, upon the filing of the petition, have jurisdiction over the prisoner 

or his custodian.” United States v. Brown, 753 F.2d 455, 456 (5th Cir. 1985). Because Petitioner 

is incarcerated in New Jersey, only the district court in New Jersey has jurisdiction to review his 

§ 2241 petition. Id. Accordingly this Court lacks jurisdiction to afford Petitioner habeas relief

under §2241. Id.

Similarly, the Court cannot construe the Petition as a motion to vacate under § 2255 because a 

§ 2255 motion must be filed in the sentencing court, which, as noted above, is the Southern District 

of Florida. Pack, 218 F.3d at 451; see also Solsona v. Warden, F.C.I., 821 F.2d 1129, 1132 (5th Cir.

1987) (holding that only the sentencing court has jurisdiction to hear a § 2255 motion attacking a

sentence). Because Petitioner was sentenced in the Southern District of Florida, only that Court 

would have jurisdiction to construe his Petition as a § 2255 motion. See Solsona, 821 F.2d at 1132.

Because the Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the merits of this Petition, it must be 

dismissed. See Lee v. Wetzel, 244 F.3d 370, 375 (5th Cir. 2001) (holding that if district court lacks 

jurisdiction to entertain habeas petition, it must dismiss petition for lack of jurisdiction).

Case 1:20-cv-00537-RP-SH Document 7 Filed 06/15/20 Page 5 of 6
6

III. RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the District Court DISMISS

Petitioner’s Petition Pursuant to All Writs Act for Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad 

Subjiciendum under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (Dkt. 1) for lack of jurisdiction and DISMISS all pending 

motions. 

IV. WARNINGS

The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation. A party filing objections 

must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are being made. 

The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v. 

United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). A party’s failure to file written 

objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained in this Report within fourteen 

(14) days after the party is served with a copy of the Report shall bar that party from de novo 

review by the District Court of the proposed findings and recommendations in the Report and, 

except on grounds of plain error, shall bar the party from appellate review of unobjected-to 

proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(c); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53 (1985); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. 

Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

SIGNED on June 15, 2020.

SUSAN HIGHTOWER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00537-RP-SH Document 7 Filed 06/15/20 Page 6 of 6