Opinion
No. 3:03-CV-1116-K.
April 19, 2004
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and an Order of the Court in implementation thereof, subject cause has previously been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are as follows:
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a federal prisoner incarcerated in FCI Seagoville who challenges his June 11, 2002 federal conviction in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Cause No. 6:01-CR-0054. ( See Verified Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Pet.) at 2-3.) He names K.J. Wendt, Warden of the Seagoville facility, as respondent. Petitioner asserts that the Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and 2255, and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. (Pet. at 2.)
II. JURISDICTION
"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). They "must presume that a suit lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests on the party seeking the federal forum." Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001).
A. Section 1651
In this instance, plaintiff asserts that the Court has jurisdiction over this action under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. (Pet. at 2.) However, § 1651 of the All Writs Act provides no basis for jurisdiction. "[T]he All Writs Act does not confer an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction." Renteria-Gonzalez v. INS, 322 F.3d 804, 811 (5th Cir. 2002); accord, Morris v. T E Marine Corp., 344 F.3d 439, 443 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (2002)).
B. Section 2241
Petitioner also asserts that jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Section 2241(a) provides district courts the power to grant a writ of habeas corpus. A petitioner is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 only to remedy his or her restraint of liberty in violation of the constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States. United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205, 211-12 n. 11 (1952). "Habeas corpus relief is extraordinary and `is reserved for transgressions of constitutional rights and for a narrow range of injuries that could not have been raised on direct appeal and would, if condoned, result in a complete miscarriage of justice.'" Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209, 213 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Vaughn, 955 F.2d 367, 368 (5th Cir. 1992)). The remedy afforded under § 2241 is "no different" from the scope of remedy afforded under § 2255. Id. at 214.
A petition filed under § 2241 "is not . . . a substitute for a motion under § 2255." See Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001). A motion under § 2255 "provides the primary means of collaterally attacking a federal conviction and sentence. Relief under this section is warranted for errors that occurred at trial or sentencing." Id. "A section 2241 petition that seeks to challenge the validity of a federal sentence must either be dismissed or construed as a section 2255 motion." See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000). Nevertheless, § 2255 "contains a `savings clause,' which acts as a limited exception to this general rule." Id. That clause provides:
An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section, shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because of this clause, "a section 2241 petition that seeks to challenge a federal sentence or conviction-thereby effectively acting as a section 2255 motion-may only be entertained when the petitioner establishes that the remedy provided for under section 2255 is inadequate or ineffective." Pack, 218 F.3d at 452. If a petitioner who has filed a § 2241 petition fails to show § 2255 to be inadequate or ineffective, then the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the § 2241 petition. See Christopher v. Miles, 342 F.3d 378, 379 (5th Cir.) (remanding a case for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction when the petitioner failed to show § 2255 inadequate or ineffective), cert. denied sub nom., Christopher v. Sisneros, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 950 (2003).
"[T]he burden of coming forward with evidence to show the inadequacy or ineffectiveness of a motion under § 2255 rests squarely on the petitioner." Jeffers, 253 F.3d at 830. Precedent "regarding § 2255's savings clause makes clear that § 2241 is not a mere substitute for § 2255 and that the inadequacy or inefficacy requirement is stringent." Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir. 2001).
In this case, the savings clause of § 2255 does not permit petitioner to file an action under § 2241 in this Court. That clause specifically states that an application for writ of habeas corpus "shall not be entertained if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief" under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Petitioner here specifically asserts that he has filed "[n]o post judgment petitions, applications, or motions . . . in any other federal court." (Pet. at 4.) Consequently, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain his habeas petition under the savings clause.
Furthermore, petitioner has made no allegation that the remedy under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective. He provides nothing to carry his burden to show such inadequacy or ineffectiveness. When a petitioner who has filed a § 2241 petition fails to show § 2255 to be inadequate or ineffective, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider such petition. See Christopher, 342 F.3d at 379.
C. Section 2255
Petitioner also claims that jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. However, a federal prisoner must seek relief under § 2255 from the court which sentenced him. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255; Ojo v. INS, 106 F.3d 680, 683 (5th Cir. 1997). This filing requirement is jurisdictional. Ojo, 106 F.3d at 683.
In this instance, petitioner was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. Consequently, this Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
III. PROPRIETY OF TRANSFER
Although an action under § 2241 can properly be heard in this Court based upon petitioner's current incarceration in a federal prison facility within the jurisdictional boundaries of this Court, petitioner has failed to satisfy the savings clause of § 2255 so that he can pursue a § 2241 petition in this Court. This Court has no jurisdiction over this action to the extent it arises under § 2255. The convicting court — in this instance, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division — has exclusive jurisdiction over an action filed under § 2255.
When a court determines it lacks jurisdiction over an action, it must either dismiss the action or, in the interests of justice, transfer it to a court of proper jurisdiction. See Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 818 (1988) (mentioning both options); 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (West 1994) (permitting transfers to cure want of jurisdiction); Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (directing the Court to dismiss actions over which it appears that it lacks jurisdiction). To the extent the instant action arises under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the interests of justice favor transferring the action to the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, rather than dismissing it. As the place of conviction, the Tyler Division is the appropriate forum for petitioner's § 2255 action.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Court DISMISS petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief for lack of jurisdiction to the extent it arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 and 2241. To the extent the action arises under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, it is further recommended that the Court TRANSFER the action to the Tyler Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Petitioner was convicted in that court in Cause No. 6:01-CR-0054.