Opinion
EP-05-CA-315-DB.
August 24, 2005
DISMISSAL ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner Timothy J. Rinard's ("Rinard") pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, transferred to and filed in the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division, on August 18, 2005. Therein, Rinard raises four claims attacking the validity of his conviction and 262-month sentence in criminal cause no. EP-90-CR-388-DB. For the reasons discussed below, the Court concludes that Rinard's Petition should be construed as a successive Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Rinard's Petition was transferred to this District and Division pursuant to the June 7, 2005 order of Senior United States District Judge William D. Browning. Judge Browning, who sits in the District of Arizona, determined that although Rinard labeled his pleading a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, his claims were properly raised in a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ("Motion to Vacate"). Because Rinard had failed to show that a Motion to Vacate was inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention and such motions must be filed in the sentencing court, Judge Browning further concluded that he lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Rinard's claims.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Section 2255 provides the primary means of collateral attack on a federal sentence, Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000), and represents the appropriate remedy for errors alleged to have occurred at or before sentencing. Cox v. Warden, Fed'l Detention Ctr., 911 F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990). Such motions must be filed with the sentencing court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ¶ 1 (stating that a prisoner "may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence.").
Section 2241, in contrast, constitutes the proper procedural vehicle for attacking the manner in which a sentence is executed. Tolliver, 211 F.3d at 877. Therefore, a petition filed pursuant to § 2241 which challenges errors purportedly arising at trial or sentencing is properly construed as a § 2255 motion unless the petitioner establishes that the remedy provided under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Id. Only the custodial court has jurisdiction to determine whether a petitioner's claims are properly brought under § 2241 pursuant to the "savings clause" of § 2255. Hooker v. Sivley, 187 F.3d 680, 682 (5th Cir. 1999).
II. DISCUSSION
The record shows that Rinard was incarcerated in Tucson, Arizona when he filed his Petition and was subsequently transferred to Taft, California, where he is currently confined. Both locations are beyond the jurisdictional boundaries of the Western District. Because it is not the custodial court, this Court therefore has no jurisdiction to adjudicate Rinard's claims raised in a petition pursuant to § 2241. Nor does this Court believe that, under the law of this Circuit, it may accept the transfer of such a petition. See Lee v. Wetzel, 244 F3d. 370, 373-4 (5th Cir. 2001).
Insofar as the custodial court has construed Rinard's Petition as a successive Motion to Vacate and transferred it to this District and Division for further proceedings, the Court finds that it also lacks jurisdiction under § 2255 to entertain his claims on the merits. Although this Court would ordinarily have § 2255 jurisdiction over the claims of an individual sentenced in this Division, here, the record clearly shows that Rinard has previously filed a Motion to Vacate. Therefore, he must obtain permission from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a second or successive Motion to Vacate. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ¶ 8.
III. CONCLUSION ORDER
In sum, the Court concludes that it has no jurisdiction over Rinard's claims and must therefore dismiss his Petition without prejudice. The Court therefore enters the following orders:
1. Timothy J. Rinard's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.
2. All pending motions in this cause, if any, are DENIED AS MOOT.
3. The Clerk shall close this case.