Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

KEITH RUSSELL JUDD, 

Petitioner, 

v. Case No. 4:10cv91-RH/WCS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent. 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS ACTION

Petitioner filed a document titled as an "INDEPENDENT ACTION FOR RELIEF

FROM JUDGMENT TO CORRECT RECORD THAT THERE IS NO FEDERAL FELONY

CONVICTION OR SENTENCE FOR KEITH RUSSELL JUDD." Doc. 1. Petitioner is in

federal custody in Texas, and seeks relief from the judgment and sentence of the United

States District Court for the Western District of Texas, case number 7:98cr93. He asks

this court "to correct, [clarify], amend or expunge any record" of his conviction or

sentence in the Texas case, and for any other appropriate relief. Doc. 1, p. 7.
Page 2 of 4

Case No. 4:10cv91-RH/WCS

The clerk filed the document as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas

corpus and assigned a civil case number. 

Relief from a federal conviction and sentence is available by motion filed in the

sentencing court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Habeas corpus relief is unavailable to

challenge a federal conviction and sentence unless the § 2255 remedy is inadequate or

ineffective to test the legality of detention. § 2255(e) (also known as the savings

clause). See also Antonelli v. Warden, 542 F.3d 1348, 1351, n. 1 (11th Cir. 2008)

(noting it "clear that a § 2255 motion is the exclusive remedy for a federal prisoner to

collaterally attack his conviction and sentence, except in the rare cases where it is

inadequate to do so.") (citing § 2255(e) and Wofford v. Scott, 177 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir.

1999)). 

This is not the sentencing court. Even if Petitioner were entitled to proceed in

habeas corpus, he is in federal custody in Texas and this court lacks jurisdiction to

consider his claims. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426,442,124 S.Ct. 2711, 2722,

159 L.Ed.2d 513 (2004) (courts are limited by § 2241(a) to granting habeas relief "within

their respective jurisdictions," and must have jurisdiction over the custodian; the

traditional rule is that the writ is "issuable only in the district of confinement.") (citations

omitted). 

There is no reason to transfer this case to a federal court in Texas. The Fifth

Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly noted this Petitioner's "history of vexatious and

frivolous litigation in this court and many other courts," its own "repeated warnings" and

imposition of sanctions, and that they "have been insufficient to deter him from
Page 3 of 4

1

 As set forth in this order, file-stamped by the Fifth Circuit on October 9, 2009,

and by the district court on October 19, 2009, Petitioner "was convicted on June 24,

1999, and was sentenced on September 24, 1999," and the court of appeals affirmed

the conviction and sentence in 2001. Doc. 920 in that case, p. 1. The judgment

entered on the docket September 29, 1999, sentenced Petitioner to two concurrent

terms of 210 months for two counts of mailing threatening communications; Petitioner

had been convicted by a jury. Doc. 450 in that case. See also docs. 348 and 349 in

that case (verdicts of guilty on counts 1 and 2). jury

Case No. 4:10cv91-RH/WCS

continuing to file frivolous challenges to his conviction." Docs. 907, 919, 920,1 921, 922,

and 923 in 7:98cr93-RAJ (available in PACER) (Public Access to Court Electronic

Records). Each of these orders directed Petitioner to pay a $500 sanction, and barred

him from filing, "in this court or in any court subject to this court's jurisdiction, any

challenge to his conviction or sentence until all sanctions in all his actions are paid in

full," absent leave of court to file. 

Petitioner cannot proceed here, and transfer to the district of his confinement or

conviction is not appropriate. It is therefore respectfully RECOMMENDED that

Defendant's "independent action," doc. 1, be SUMMARILY DISMISSED and the clerk

directed to close this case.

IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on April 1, 2010

.

 S/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 4 of 4

Case No. 4:10cv91-RH/WCS

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 15 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 10 days after

being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of

review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.