Case Name: Christian DEL ROSARIO, Plaintiff, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Defendant
Court: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-23
Citations: 942 F. Supp. 2d 50
Docket Number: Civil Action No. 13-534
Parties: Christian DEL ROSARIO, Plaintiff, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Supplement 2d
Volume: 942
Pages: 50–51

Head Matter:
Christian DEL ROSARIO, Plaintiff, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Defendant.
Civil Action No. 13-534.
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
April 23, 2013.
Christian del Rosario, Otisville, NY, pro se.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JAMES E. BOASBERG, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on review of the plaintiffs pro se Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring dismissal of a prisoner's complaint upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted).
The plaintiff is a prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution in Otisville, New York. He challenges the constitutionality of the federal law under which he was sentenced and seeks a declaration that the law is unconstitutional and an order compelling his release. Compl. at 1, 14. "[I]t is well-settled that a [person] seeking relief from his conviction or sentence may not bring [actions for injunctive and declaratory relief]." Williams v. Hill, 74 F.3d 1339, 1340 (D.C.Cir.1996) (per curiam) (citations omitted). Plaintiffs recourse lies, if at all, in proceedings authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Taylor v. U.S. Bd. of Parole, 194 F.2d 882, 883 (D.C.Cir.1952) (stating that a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of a statute under which a defendant is convicted); Ojo v. I.N.S., 106 F.3d 680, 683 (5th Cir.1997) (explaining that the sentencing court is the only court with jurisdiction to hear a defendant's complaint regarding errors that occurred before or during sentencing). Hence, this case will be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.