Webb v. United States of America (INMATE 3)
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
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is a “Rule 22 Motion for Habeas
inmate at the Maxwell Federal Prison Camp; the motion
Alabama district court by, the Eleventh Circuit Court
§ 2241 petition for habeas-corpus relief to challenge
the alleged lack of Article III powers held by the
Virginia, to enter a judgment and conviction against
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.
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
because (1) the federal district courts, including the
Virginia court in which he was convicted and sentenced,
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
the realm of injuries addressed by motions to vacate
motion to vacate under § 2255.
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.
See Webb v. United
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).
Webb’s “Motion for Rule 60(b) Relief,” in which Webb
sought to have his self-styled § 2241 habeas corpus
petition reinstated in this court.
See Webb v. United
The court now turns to the instant motion referred
reasons, Webb will be denied leave to file yet another
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
2018) (Thompson, J.), adopting recommendation, 2018 WL
6186824 (M.D. Ala. Nov. 5, 2018) (Coody, M.J.), any
jurisdiction of the Virginia court to adjudicate his
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
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,
DONE, this the 7th day of October, 2019.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?