Opinion ID: 741989
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion for Declaratory Relief4

Text: 14 In Benson v. State Bd. of Parole & Probation, the petitioner challenged his prison sentence by filing an action for declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act. 384 F.2d 238, 239 (9th Cir.1967). There we held that the Declaratory Judgment Act may not be used as a substitute for 'habeas corpus, coram nobis or other such procedures'. Id. at 240 (quoting United States ex. rel. Bennett v. Illinois, 356 F.2d 878, 879 (7th Cir.1966) (per curiam)); see also Berman v. Resor, 302 F.Supp. 1200, 1202 (N.D.Cal.1969) (noting that Benson precluded prison inmates from using the Declaratory Judgment Act as a substitute for habeas corpus petitions). 15 Other circuits have also dismissed actions by prisoners attempting to challenge the validity of their sentences or convictions under the Declaratory Judgment Act. See, e.g., Gajewski v. United States, 368 F.2d 533, 534 (8th Cir.1966) (per curiam) ([W]e are unaware of any authority which would permit the [Declaratory Judgment Act] to be used as a post-conviction remedy.); Forsythe v. Ohio, 333 F.2d 678, 679 (6th Cir.1964) (per curiam) ([T]he Declaratory Judgment Act ... cannot be used as a substitute for appeal, habeas corpus, coram nobis or other procedures....). 5 16 Because the Declaratory Judgment Act is not a substitute for a § 2255 motion to correct a sentence, we affirm the district court's decision to deny Gutierrez's motion for declaratory relief.