Webb v. United States of America (INMATE 3)
Filing
24
OPINION AND ORDER: Accordingly, for the reasons indicated above, it is ORDERED that petitioner David Webb's "Rule 22 Motion for Habeas Corpus" (doc. no. 21 ), seeking leave to file a 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition for habeas corpus relief, is denied. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 10/7/2019. (kh, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
DAVID WEBB,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:18cv841-MHT
(WO)
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is a “Rule 22 Motion for Habeas
Corpus”
filed
by
petitioner
David
Webb,
a
federal
inmate at the Maxwell Federal Prison Camp; the motion
was
originally
filed
in,
and
then
referred
to
this
Alabama district court by, the Eleventh Circuit Court
of
Appeals.
Webb
seeks
leave
to
file
a
28
U.S.C.
§ 2241 petition for habeas-corpus relief to challenge
the alleged lack of Article III powers held by the
sentencing
States
court
District
in
his
Court
criminal
for
the
case,
Eastern
the
United
District
of
Virginia, to enter a judgment and conviction against
him.
Webb has been convicted of inducement of another
to travel in interstate commerce in the execution of a
scheme and artifice to defraud that person of property,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314.
I.
Previously, Webb filed with this Alabama federal
court a self-styled petition for writ of habeas corpus
under § 2241 raising the same claims presented in his
instant
motion;
claimed
that
he
his
later
amended
conviction
and
his
petition.
sentence
were
He
void
because (1) the federal district courts, including the
Virginia court in which he was convicted and sentenced,
are
not
lawfully
established
by
Congress;
(2)
the
United States suffered no “injury in fact” from his
alleged crimes and thus lacked standing to prosecute
him; and (3) his guilty plea was entered under duress
in violation of his due-process rights.
Because Webb’s claims challenged the validity of
his conviction and sentence and fell squarely within
2
the realm of injuries addressed by motions to vacate
under
28
U.S.C.
self-styled
§
§ 2241
2255,
this
petition
court
must
motion to vacate under § 2255.
be
found
that
considered
his
as
a
And, because venue and
jurisdiction for actions considered under § 2255 lie in
only the district of conviction, this court transferred
his case to the Virginia court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1631, for review and disposition.
States,
2018
(Thompson,
WL
J.),
6182627
(M.D.
adopting
See Webb v. United
Ala.
Nov.
27,
recommendation,
2018)
2018
WL
6186824 (M.D. Ala. Nov. 5, 2018) (Coody, M.J.).
After transfer, the Virginia court entered an order
denying Webb’s construed § 2255 motion after finding
all his claims to be without merit. See United States
v. Webb, Civil Case No. 1:18cv1456-AJT/IDD (E.D. Va.
2019) (doc. no. 23).
Also
after
transfer,
this
Alabama
court
denied
Webb’s “Motion for Rule 60(b) Relief,” in which Webb
sought to have his self-styled § 2241 habeas corpus
3
petition reinstated in this court.
States,
2019
WL
3074956
(M.D.
See Webb v. United
Ala.
July
15,
2019)
(Thompson, J.).
II.
The court now turns to the instant motion referred
to
this
court
by
the
Eleventh
Circuit.
For
two
reasons, Webb will be denied leave to file yet another
§
2241
habeas-corpus
petition
in
this
Alabama
court
challenging the Virginia court’s jurisdiction to impose
judgment and conviction upon him in his criminal case.
First, as previously and repeatedly determined by
this court, see Webb v. United States, 2019 WL 3074956
(M.D.
United
Ala.
July
States,
15,
2018
2019)
WL
(Thompson,
6182627
(M.D.
J.);
Ala.
Webb
Nov.
v.
27,
2018) (Thompson, J.), adopting recommendation, 2018 WL
6186824 (M.D. Ala. Nov. 5, 2018) (Coody, M.J.), any
challenges
raised
by
Webb
regarding
the
lack
of
jurisdiction of the Virginia court to adjudicate his
4
criminal case are not proper claims for relief in a
§ 2241 habeas petition, see McCarthan v. Director of
Goodwill Industries-Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076, 1081
(11th
Cir.
2017);
Venta
v.
Warden,
FCC
Coleman-Low,
2017 WL 4280936, at *1 (11th Cir. 2017), and must be
addressed under § 2255 in the district of conviction.
Second, the instant motion is just another improper
effort to get around this court’s earlier rulings and
get his case back in this court.
The court is already
ruled on the matter again and again.
***
Accordingly, for the reasons indicated above, it is
ORDERED that petitioner David Webb’s “Rule 22 Motion
for Habeas Corpus” (doc. no. 21), seeking leave to file
a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for habeas corpus relief,
is denied.
DONE, this the 7th day of October, 2019.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?