Del Rosario v. Holder

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedApril 23, 2013
DocketCivil Action No. 2013-0534
StatusPublished

This text of Del Rosario v. Holder (Del Rosario 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
Del Rosario v. Holder, (D.D.C. 2013).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F 1 E D FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APR 2 3 2[]‘\3

_S, Dlstrict & BankruP"°V Ccriiiiiis ltlor the Distrlct ot Go\umbl@

Christian Del Rosario, ) )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. |B , L?L

Eric H. Holder, ) )

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of the plaintiff s pro se Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and application to proceed in forma pauperz`s. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l9l5A (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 l, l4. "[I]t is well-settled that a [person] seeking relief from his conviction or sentence may not bring [actions for injunctive and declaratory relief]." Wl`lliams v. Hill, 74 F.3d 1339, 1340 (D.C, Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (citations omitted). Plaintiff` s recourse lies, if at all, in proceedings authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Taylor v. U.S. Bd. ofParole, 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.NS.,

106 F.3d 680, 683 (5"‘ 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.

Date: April ,2013

'//,.'/Z¢M

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Del Rosario v. Holder, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/del-rosario-v-holder-dcd-2013.