Wells v. United States District Court

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: May 31, 2012
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2012-0877
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MAY 3 1 2012 Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy DAMIEN WELLS, ) Courts for the District of Columbia ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 12 0877 ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT ) COURT, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis

and his pro se complaint. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint.

Plaintiff is serving a 240-month sentence imposed by the United States District Court for

the District ofNebraska in April2002. Compl. at 2. He states that he "was sentenced to and

charged with crack cocaine and is entitled to the new statutory penalties enacted by Congress

under the Fair Sentencing Act." !d. He claims to be "held illegally in light of the new statutory

penalties," for which he claims "compensation of $500.00 a day as he is entitled to immediately

[sic] release." !d. at 3.

The Court construes the complaint as a challenge to the legality of the plaintiffs criminal

sentence. A challenge of this nature must be presented to the sentencing court in a motion under

28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Ojo v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 106 F.3d 680, 683 (5th Cir.

1997). Section 2255 provides specifically that:

[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

N 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). And because plaintiffs claim pertains to the fact ofhis

incarceration, he cannot recover damages in this civil rights action without showing that his

confinement already has been invalidated by "revers[al] on direct appeal, expunge[ment] by

executive order, declar[ ation of invalidity] by a state tribunal authorized to make such

determination, or ... a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus." Heck v. Humphrey,

512 U.S. 477,486-87 (1994); accord White v. Bowie, 194 F.3d 175 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (table).

The Court will dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. An Order accompanies this

Memorandum Opinion.

United States District Judge

DATE: c; It£( (1..