Th e fi lin g is a c tua lly tit le d “ In Re : Wr it o f H a

be a s Co rp us Pur su ant T o 5 USC 1 § 706 2(A)( B) (D)( F) and 28 USC § 2241(c) (3).” 1 D A V ID K IS S I, Petitioner,
v . THOMAS SI MMONS, et al .,

Re sp on de nts . UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

Ci v il A c ti o nN o . 0 9
- 1 3 0 4 ( RB W)

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION This matter is befor e the Court on David Kissi’s petition for a writ of ha beas c orpus. The petition will be dism issed for lac k of subject matter jurisdiction. In the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virg inia, a jury found petitioner guilty

of two counts of ba

nkruptcy fra ud, three counts of obstruction of justice, a nd two counts of conte mpt. SeeWrit of Habea s Corpus Petiti on (“Pet.” ) , Attachment ( “Attac h.”) 1 (Judgment in a Criminal Case, Case N o. 8:05-cr- 00254) at 31. On Aug ust 10, 2007, the petitioner wa s sentence d to a prison term of 30 months and one day
. Id. at 32. In this action, petitioner attempts a c ollatera l challeng e to his conviction and sente nce by attackingthe ar

rest wa rra nt and the af

fidavit on which it was ba sed, alleg ing that witnesses offe red pe rjured te stimony at trial, and that judge s, clerks, c ourt repor ters, and attorney s involved in court proc eeding s in both the criminal action and in ba nkruptcy proce eding s befor e UnitedAcc ordingto the Fe dera l Bure au of Prisons’ Inmat e L o cator, petitioner’s 2 projec ted re lease date is August 30, 2009. 2 States Ba nkruptcy Court for the District of

Mary land committed acts of misconduc t. See ge ne ra lly Pet. Petiti oner de mands his immediate rele ase. See id. at 7. Challeng es of this nature 2 must be prese nted to the sentenc ing c ourt in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See M orrison v. Gu zik , Nos. 97-6351, 97-6416, 1998 WL380539, at *2 (10th Cir. J une 30, 1998) ( concluding that a habe as petition assertinga “c laim . . . ultim ately predic ated on his conte ntion that the trial
c ourt e rr e d w he n it

imp os e d a

se nte nc e that e xce e de d th e statut or y ma ximum ” is p ro pe rl y br ou g ht b e fo re the se nte nc ingc ourt by a § 2 25 5 mo tio n) ; Ojo v. Im migration & Naturali zation Se rv .,106 F.3d 680, 683 ( 5th Cir. 1997) (findingthat a motion under § 2255 “ is the proper means of a tta c kin ge rr or s th at oc c ur re d d ur ingor be fo re se nte nc ing ” ); Lopez v. Muk asey , No. 08-0717, 2008 WL1985232, at *1 (D.D .C. May 5, 2008) (dismissing pe tition for lack of jurisdiction “[b] eca use petitioner is cha lleng ing his c onviction, [ and] his recourse lies in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255” befor e the United States D istrict Court for the Nor thern District of T exas). Se c tio n 2 25 5 p ro vid e s sp e c if ic a lly that: [a] prisonerin custody

under se ntence of a c ourt established by Act of Cong ress c laiming the r ight to be rele ased upon the g round that the sentenc e wa s imposed in violation of t he Constituti on or laws of the Un ite d St ate s, or

tha t th e c ourt

wa s w ith out juri sd ic tio n to imp os e such sentenc e, or that the sentenc e wa s in ex cess of the max i m um authorized by

law, or is other

wise subject to coll ater al attac k, may movethe court w h i ch imposed the sente nce to v acate, se t aside or correc t the sentenc e . 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 2 5 5 ( a ) ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d )
. M o r e o v e r , th e o p p o rtun i ty t o c h a l l e n g e a c o n v i c t i o nb y a motion to vacate the se ntence g ener ally prec ludes a c halleng e by means of a

petition for habe as
c or pu s:3 [a] n application for

a wr it of habea s corpus in beha lf of a pr isoner wh o is a uth or ize d to a

pp ly fo r re lie f by mot ion

purs ua nt t o [28 U. S.C. § 2255], s h a ll

n o t b e e n te r ta ine d if it appea rs that the applica

nt has fa ile d to app ly fo r re lie f, by mot ion , to the c ourt

wh ic h s e nte nc e d h im, or that such cour

t has denied him re lief, unless it also appea rs that the reme dy by motion is inadequate or inef fec tive to test the leg ality of his detention. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) (e mphasis added)
. Th e Court

the re fo re wi ll d ism iss the pe tit ion wi tho ut p re

jud ic e . A n O rd e r c on sis te nt w ith this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately on this same date.

SI GNED on this 31 day

of Jul y , 2009. st

/ s /

REGGI E B. WAL TON United States District J udg e