UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ANTHONY MARK SILVA, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-4118 (RC) ) J. BIENEMY, et al., ) ) Respondents. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on Anthony Mark Silva’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1, “Pet.”) and his motions to compel (ECF No. 5, “Mot. to
Compel”) and to expand the record (ECF No. 6). For the reasons discussed below, the Court
DENIES the petition without prejudice and DENIES the motions without prejudice as moot.
Petitioner, currently designated to the Federal Correctional Institution in Petersburg,
Virginia, see Pet. ¶ 7, is serving an 84-month term of incarceration upon his criminal conviction in
the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, see generally Mot. to Compel,
Ex. 2 (ECF No. 5-2 at 87-101, Criminal Docket, United States v. Silva, No. 1:22-cr-0034-SE-AJ-1
(D.N.H. filed Mar. 22, 2022)) (exhibit numbers designated by the Court; page numbers designated
by CM/ECF). He deems his custody unlawful based on acts, omissions, and alleged misconduct
occurring during the criminal proceedings. In his view, “[e]very instrument that purported to
authorize his arrest, indictment, prosecution, and continued confinement was constructed on
factual premises now proven false, unverified at the time they were presented, or jurisdictionally
void under the Speedy Trial Act.” Mot. to Compel, Ex. 1 (ECF No. 5-1) at 4. At great length,
1 petitioner sets forth his version of events, see generally id. at 4-28, pointing out, for example, that the
superseding indictment allegedly was void, see id. at 13-14, and that prosecutors allegedly failed to
disclose exculpatory evidence, see, e.g., id. at 5, 16; Pet. at 2. Claiming to be “held in violation of
the Constitution and laws of the United States,” id. at 2, petitioner demands his immediate release
from custody, see id. at 1.
A. This District is Not the Proper Forum for Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition
“[A] petitioner claiming to be ‘in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties
of the United States’ may seek a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court.” Day v. Trump, 860
F.3d 686, 689 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3)). “Writs of habeas corpus pursuant
to § 2241 are typically used to challenge the manner in which one’s sentence is executed.” Amin v.
Barr, No. 19-cv-3418 (RC), 2020 WL 4049903, at *1 (D.D.C. July 20, 2020); cf. Jones v. Hendrix,
599 U.S. 465, 475 (2023) (remarking that “the saving clause ensures that § 2255(e) does not
displace § 2241 when a prisoner challenges ‘the legality of his detention’ without attacking the
validity of his sentence”) (emphasis in original). For example, a prisoner may challenge the
calculation of his sentence by way of a habeas petition under § 2241. See, e.g., United States v. Queen,
No. 17-cr-0058 (EGS), 2020 WL 2748495, at *5 (D.D.C. May 27, 2020) (finding § 2241 “the
proper vehicle for challenges to the execution of a defendant’s sentence, the administration of his
sentence, or the length of his confinement”).
If petitioner were challenging the execution of his sentence under § 2241, the District of
Columbia is not the proper forum for adjudication of the claim. The proper respondent in a habeas
corpus action is petitioner’s custodian, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004), and this
“district court may not entertain a habeas petition involving present physical custody unless the
respondent custodian is within its territorial jurisdiction,” Stokes v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 374 F.3d
2 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Petitioner and his custodian are in the Eastern District of Virginia,
not the District of Columbia, and dismissal of the § 2241 petition is warranted.1 See, e.g., Lopez-Pena
v. Garland, No. 20-cv-1889 (RDM), 2021 WL 2188127 (D.D.C. May 28, 2021).
B. This Court Lacks Jurisdiction over Petitioner’s § 2255 Motion
Where, as here, petitioner is challenging directly his conviction and sentence, he must
proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which in relevant part provides:
[a] prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress 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, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) (emphasis added). Accordingly, petitioner’s challenge to his conviction and
sentence must proceed in the sentencing court – the District of New Hampshire – by motion under
§ 2255. See Taylor v. U.S. Bd. of Parole, 194 F.2d 882, 883 (D.C. Cir. 1952); Pradelski v. Hawk-Sawyer,
36 F. Supp. 2d 1, 2 (D.D.C. 1999). This is not the sentencing court and, therefore, cannot entertain
petitioner’s § 2255 motion. See Matthews v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, No. 15-cv-0569 (RDM),
2021 WL 2823124, at *3 (D.D.C. July 7, 2021) (“Because this Court is not Matthews’s sentencing
court, it is without jurisdiction to hear any § 2255 motion that Matthews may raise.”); Larsen v.
Barr, No. 20-cv-0840 (RDM), 2020 WL 8839630, at *1 (D.D.C. Apr. 2, 2020) (finding claim that
petitioner’s “detention is unlawful because of alleged flaws in the sentencing court’s jurisdiction
1 Petitioner filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Eastern District of Virginia, the district of his current confinement. See Pet. ¶¶ 10-11, 13; Silva v. Bienemy, No. 2:25-cv-0688-JKW- RJK (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 28, 2025). As petitioner represents, see Pet. ¶ 11, the court issued an order to show cause why the § 2241 petition challenging his sentence imposed by the District of New Hampshire and the District of New Hampshire’s handling of his § 2255 motion should not be dismissed, given that the same claims are pending in the District of New Hampshire. See Order, Silva v. Bienemy, No. 2:25-cv-0688-JKW-RJK (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 6, 2025) (ECF No. 16). 3 and the unconstitutionality of his prosecution” fall within the scope of § 2255); Amin, 2020 WL
4049903, at *2 (concluding petitioner’s claims that “underlying conviction and sentence were
unconstitutional and that the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction” properly are challenged by
motion under § 2255, even though petitioner styled his habeas petition as one under § 2241).
Petitioner acknowledges that the District of New Hampshire is the proper forum for
adjudication of his § 2255 motion. See Pet. ¶ 9.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ANTHONY MARK SILVA, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-4118 (RC) ) J. BIENEMY, et al., ) ) Respondents. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on Anthony Mark Silva’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1, “Pet.”) and his motions to compel (ECF No. 5, “Mot. to
Compel”) and to expand the record (ECF No. 6). For the reasons discussed below, the Court
DENIES the petition without prejudice and DENIES the motions without prejudice as moot.
Petitioner, currently designated to the Federal Correctional Institution in Petersburg,
Virginia, see Pet. ¶ 7, is serving an 84-month term of incarceration upon his criminal conviction in
the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, see generally Mot. to Compel,
Ex. 2 (ECF No. 5-2 at 87-101, Criminal Docket, United States v. Silva, No. 1:22-cr-0034-SE-AJ-1
(D.N.H. filed Mar. 22, 2022)) (exhibit numbers designated by the Court; page numbers designated
by CM/ECF). He deems his custody unlawful based on acts, omissions, and alleged misconduct
occurring during the criminal proceedings. In his view, “[e]very instrument that purported to
authorize his arrest, indictment, prosecution, and continued confinement was constructed on
factual premises now proven false, unverified at the time they were presented, or jurisdictionally
void under the Speedy Trial Act.” Mot. to Compel, Ex. 1 (ECF No. 5-1) at 4. At great length,
1 petitioner sets forth his version of events, see generally id. at 4-28, pointing out, for example, that the
superseding indictment allegedly was void, see id. at 13-14, and that prosecutors allegedly failed to
disclose exculpatory evidence, see, e.g., id. at 5, 16; Pet. at 2. Claiming to be “held in violation of
the Constitution and laws of the United States,” id. at 2, petitioner demands his immediate release
from custody, see id. at 1.
A. This District is Not the Proper Forum for Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition
“[A] petitioner claiming to be ‘in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties
of the United States’ may seek a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court.” Day v. Trump, 860
F.3d 686, 689 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3)). “Writs of habeas corpus pursuant
to § 2241 are typically used to challenge the manner in which one’s sentence is executed.” Amin v.
Barr, No. 19-cv-3418 (RC), 2020 WL 4049903, at *1 (D.D.C. July 20, 2020); cf. Jones v. Hendrix,
599 U.S. 465, 475 (2023) (remarking that “the saving clause ensures that § 2255(e) does not
displace § 2241 when a prisoner challenges ‘the legality of his detention’ without attacking the
validity of his sentence”) (emphasis in original). For example, a prisoner may challenge the
calculation of his sentence by way of a habeas petition under § 2241. See, e.g., United States v. Queen,
No. 17-cr-0058 (EGS), 2020 WL 2748495, at *5 (D.D.C. May 27, 2020) (finding § 2241 “the
proper vehicle for challenges to the execution of a defendant’s sentence, the administration of his
sentence, or the length of his confinement”).
If petitioner were challenging the execution of his sentence under § 2241, the District of
Columbia is not the proper forum for adjudication of the claim. The proper respondent in a habeas
corpus action is petitioner’s custodian, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004), and this
“district court may not entertain a habeas petition involving present physical custody unless the
respondent custodian is within its territorial jurisdiction,” Stokes v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 374 F.3d
2 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Petitioner and his custodian are in the Eastern District of Virginia,
not the District of Columbia, and dismissal of the § 2241 petition is warranted.1 See, e.g., Lopez-Pena
v. Garland, No. 20-cv-1889 (RDM), 2021 WL 2188127 (D.D.C. May 28, 2021).
B. This Court Lacks Jurisdiction over Petitioner’s § 2255 Motion
Where, as here, petitioner is challenging directly his conviction and sentence, he must
proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which in relevant part provides:
[a] prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress 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, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) (emphasis added). Accordingly, petitioner’s challenge to his conviction and
sentence must proceed in the sentencing court – the District of New Hampshire – by motion under
§ 2255. See Taylor v. U.S. Bd. of Parole, 194 F.2d 882, 883 (D.C. Cir. 1952); Pradelski v. Hawk-Sawyer,
36 F. Supp. 2d 1, 2 (D.D.C. 1999). This is not the sentencing court and, therefore, cannot entertain
petitioner’s § 2255 motion. See Matthews v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, No. 15-cv-0569 (RDM),
2021 WL 2823124, at *3 (D.D.C. July 7, 2021) (“Because this Court is not Matthews’s sentencing
court, it is without jurisdiction to hear any § 2255 motion that Matthews may raise.”); Larsen v.
Barr, No. 20-cv-0840 (RDM), 2020 WL 8839630, at *1 (D.D.C. Apr. 2, 2020) (finding claim that
petitioner’s “detention is unlawful because of alleged flaws in the sentencing court’s jurisdiction
1 Petitioner filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Eastern District of Virginia, the district of his current confinement. See Pet. ¶¶ 10-11, 13; Silva v. Bienemy, No. 2:25-cv-0688-JKW- RJK (E.D. Va. filed Oct. 28, 2025). As petitioner represents, see Pet. ¶ 11, the court issued an order to show cause why the § 2241 petition challenging his sentence imposed by the District of New Hampshire and the District of New Hampshire’s handling of his § 2255 motion should not be dismissed, given that the same claims are pending in the District of New Hampshire. See Order, Silva v. Bienemy, No. 2:25-cv-0688-JKW-RJK (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 6, 2025) (ECF No. 16). 3 and the unconstitutionality of his prosecution” fall within the scope of § 2255); Amin, 2020 WL
4049903, at *2 (concluding petitioner’s claims that “underlying conviction and sentence were
unconstitutional and that the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction” properly are challenged by
motion under § 2255, even though petitioner styled his habeas petition as one under § 2241).
Petitioner acknowledges that the District of New Hampshire is the proper forum for
adjudication of his § 2255 motion. See Pet. ¶ 9. He claims that that district “is structurally
unavailable,” to him, id., and invokes, see id. ¶¶ 8-9, the following provision:
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(e) (emphasis added).
According to petitioner, all judges in the District of New Hampshire “are disqualified or
recused,” id. ¶ 9.a., such that “no judge is available to perform the basic function of adjudicating
[p]etitioner’s claims,” id. ¶ 9.d. Further, petitioner contends that the general mishandling of
habeas-related filings, see, e.g., id. ¶¶ 9.b., 9.c., 19, “have prevented adjudication,” id. ¶ 9.c.
Consequently, petitioner deems any “§ 2255 remedy . . . inadequate and ineffective” in the District
of New Hampshire. Id. ¶ 9. Nevertheless, “[o]n May 2, 2025, Petitioner filed habeas-related
proceedings in the District of New Hampshire,” id. ¶ 17, and proceedings on petitioner’s § 2255
motion are ongoing, see Silva v. United States, No. 1:25-cv-0169-JL (D.N.H. filed May 2, 2025).
Petitioner cannot argue plausibly that the § 2255 remedy is unavailable to him or is
ineffective, no matter how dissatisfied he may be with those proceedings, and even if his efforts
ultimately fail. See Boyer v. Conaboy, 983 F. Supp. 4, 8 (D.D.C. 1997) (noting that “federal courts
have been virtually unanimous that when a prisoner claims his § 2255 proceeding is inefficacious,
4 ‘[l]ack of success in the sentencing court does not render his remedy inadequate or ineffective.’”
(quoting Boyden v. United States, 463 F.2d 229, 230 (9th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 912 (1973)).
Even if petitioner were able to proceed under § 2255(e), the District of Columbia is not the proper
venue. See Gerrans v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. 24-5206, 2025 WL 573456, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 21,
2025) (per curiam) (“Although a prisoner may seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to collaterally
attack the legality of his conviction if remedy by § 2255 motion is inadequate . . . , the appropriate
forum for a § 2241 habeas petition is the district of residence of the prisoner’s custodian,” and
“[b]ecause the District of Columbia is neither the district of residence of appellant’s custodian nor
the district of sentencing, the district court correctly dismissed appellant’s case”).
Petitioner cannot circumvent § 2255 by raising claims, see Pet. ¶¶ 2, 5, 40-43, under the
Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). See United States v. Richardson, No. 13-cv-0923, 2014 WL
1371546, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 8, 2014) (noting that petitioner “cannot mislabel his way around the
gatekeeping requirements of § 2255 by calling his motion a civil complaint under the APA when
the arguments he advances and the relief he seeks are precisely the type for which § 2255 was
created to be the exclusive remedy”). Further, only “[a]gency action made reviewable by statute
and final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court are subject to
judicial review,” 5 U.S.C. § 704, and petitioner has available to him a remedy under § 2255, see
Starks v. U.S. Sent’g Comm’n, No. 21-cv-2422 (UNA), 2021 WL 4709720, at *2 (D.D.C. Sept. 27,
2021), aff’d sub nom. Starks v. United States Sent’g Comm’n, No. 21-5281, 2022 WL 2160910 (D.C.
Cir. June 15, 2022) (per curiam); Stone v. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Devel., 859 F. Supp. 2d 59, 63
(D.D.C. 2012). And petitioner is no more successful if he were to proceed, see Pet. ¶ 3, under the
All Writs Act, see 28 U.S.C. § 1651. See Perales v. United States, No. 00-5139, 2000 WL 1279288, at
5 *1 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 11, 2000) (per curiam) (“Appellant may not circumvent the restrictions on the
availability of habeas corpus relief [under § 2255] by relying on the All Writs Act”).
An Order is issued separately.
DATE: February 1, 2026 /s/ RUDOLPH CONTRERAS United States District Judge