Court Opinion

ID: 9377038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-06 18:01:16.88356+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:11.508949
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________
                                          )
FRANKIE DEAN WINTERHALTER,                )
                                          )
                        Petitioner,       )
                                          )
            v.                            )                   Civil Action No. 23-0547 (UNA)
                                          )
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al.,       )
                                          )
                        Respondents.      )
_________________________________________ )

                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION

       This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Frankie Dean Winterhalter’s application to

proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) and his pro se Petition for Judicial Review (ECF No. 1).

Petitioner, an enrolled member of the Otoe-Missouria Tribe, is in the custody of the Oklahoma

Department of Corrections serving a sentence imposed by the Oklahoma State courts for crimes

committed within the boundaries of the Pawnee Nation reservation. See Pet. at 1. The Court

understands Petitioner to assert that the Oklahoma courts lacked jurisdiction over his criminal

case, yet he remains incarcerated. See id. at 2. He asks the Court, pursuant to the

Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), see 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., “review . . . Respondents’

failure to investigate, and, if necessary, prosecute Oklahoma state officials” responsible for his

“illegal detention,” Compl. at 3.

       Petitioner has no cause of action under the APA, which provides for judicial review only

if “there is no other adequate remedy.” 5 U.S.C. § 704. Insofar as petitioner demands release

                                                 1
from custody, “[t]hat demand is certainly cognizable through the writ of habeas corpus.”

Vetcher v. Sessions, 316 F. Supp. 3d 70, 78 (D.D.C. 2018) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.

475, 484 (1973)); see Stern v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 601 F. Supp. 2d 303, 305 (D.D.C. 2009)

(concluding that the availability of habeas relief under § 2241 precluded an APA claim because

“the APA does not allow a claim unless ‘there is no other adequate remedy in a court’” (internal

quotation marks omitted)).

       The Court will grant petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and will

dismiss the petition and this civil action. An Order is issued separately.

                                                             /s/
                                                             RANDOLPH D. MOSS
DATE: March 6, 2023                                          United States District Judge

                                                 2