Brown v. Holder

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedJanuary 3, 2014
DocketCivil Action No. 2014-0023
StatusPublished

This text of Brown v. Holder (Brown v. Holder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brown v. Holder, (D.D.C. 2014).

Opinion

FILED JAN-a 2014

Cl¢fk, U.S. District arm Bankruptcy comm

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF C()LUMBIA

DERRICK L. BROWN, ) )

Petitioner, )

)

v ) Civil Action No. { ,_{ f 13

ERIC HOLDER, JR., et al., ) )

Resp0ndents. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The petitioner, who currently is incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, has filed a "First Amendment Petition" asserting his actual innocence to the crimes of which he has been convicted. See generally Pet. at l-Z. He further has asserted that he was prosecuted in ways that violate his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and F0urteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. See ia'. at 2. Among other relief, petitioner asked this Court "to vacate conviction and sentence immediately; to dismiss the indictment and charges immediately; to order respondents liable for all damages; and to immediately discharge

and release" him." Ia’. at 3.

"A prisoner in custody under sentence of a [federal] court . . . claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States . . . may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) (emphasis added). Because petitioner was convicted

and sentenced in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, see Pet. at

§§

2, this Court cannot address a challenge to the legality of petitioner’s criminal sentence. See Ojo v. Immigration & Natura/izatz`on Serv., l06 F.3d 680, 683 (5th Cir. l997). Nor can this Court entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus for his immediate release from custody because neither petitioner nor his custodian is within its territorial jurisdiction. See Stokes v. U.S. Parole

Comm ’n, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Th Court will dismiss this action.

An Order is issued separately.

Uniied States District Judge DATE:

/L/ZV//j

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Stokes v. United States Parole Commission
374 F.3d 1235 (D.C. Circuit, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Brown v. Holder, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-holder-dcd-2014.