Sanders v. United States Department of Justice

Opinion

FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APR 2 1 2009 NANCY MAYER WHITTINGTON. CLERK Cornell Sanders, ) U.S. DISTRICT COURT ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 09 0721 ) United States Dep't of Justice et ai., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Coleman,

Florida, has filed a pro se complaint and applied to proceed in forma pauperis. The application

will be granted and the complaint dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs complaint states that it is a suit brought under the Freedom of Information Act,

5 U.S.C. § 552. Compl. at 1. The facts alleged and relief requested, however, make clear that

this action is not an appeal from an agency determination of plaintiffs FOIA request. Rather,

plaintiff seeks a determination by this court of the authenticity of the arrest warrant in his

underlying criminal proceeding, id at 3, which he suspects to be a later-manufactured forgery, id

at 3-4, and which has been produced to him, id at 5. Plaintiffs interest in this information stems

from his belief that the existence of a later-forged arrest warrant would be "relevant in proving

... [the] absence of probable cause ... [and] no jurisdiction to prosecute ... and therefore [that]

his confinement and conviction is contrary to the laws of the United States.") Id

) To the extent that plaintiff seeks to collaterally attack his underlying criminal conviction, plaintiffs exclusive recourse lies with a motion made under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 submitted to the court that tried, convicted, and sentenced him. Ojo v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 106 F.3d 680,683 (5th Cir. 1997) (the sentencing court is the only court with jurisdiction to hear defendant's complaint regarding errors that occurred before or during sentencing).

~\ The FOIA affords no private right of action for a forensic examination or determination

of the authenticity of a document produced in response to a FOIA request. Therefore, this case

will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

Date: frrt'":1 ~ ~ United States District Judge