Rodriguez-Mata v. United States of America

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: This matter is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Senior District Judge Richard D. Rogers on 9/8/2011.(Mailed to pro se party Adrian Mata Rodriguez by regular mail.) (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

ADRIAN MATA RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
CIVIL ACTION
No. 11-3157-RDR

vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on a petition for habeas
corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by a federal prisoner
incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution, Fort Dix,
New Jersey.
Background
Petitioner was convicted in July 2010 in the District of
Kansas.

In this action, he alleges the prosecution’s case

against him was flawed because it was built on information
supplied by an untested informant.

He also argues that he was

improperly charged with the possession of drugs found in a
vehicle in which he was a passenger.
Discussion
The purposes of an application for habeas corpus filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 are distinct.

“Congress long ago decided that a federal

prisoner's attempt to attack the legality of his conviction or
sentence generally must be brought under § 2255, and in the
district court that convicted and sentenced him.” Prost v.
Anderson, 636 F.3d 578, 581 (10th Cir. 2011).

In contrast,

petitions brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 are “generally
reserved

for

complaints

about

the

nature

of

a

prisoner's

confinement, not the fact of his confinement,” id., and “must be
filed in the district where the prisoner is confined.”

Bradshaw

v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996).
The present action under § 2241 is not properly filed in
this court, as petitioner is incarcerated in New Jersey.

Next,

because the petitioner’s allegations challenge the legality of
his conviction, they must be presented in a motion pursuant to
§ 2255.
Generally,

a

petitioner

may

present

only

pursuant to § 2255. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).

one

motion

Therefore, the

courts should not sua sponte convert a pro se pleading into a
habeas corpus action due, in part, to the “concern that a
subsequent § 2255 motion would be considered successive and
barred” and could “prevent a prisoner from raising a legitimate
claim in a subsequent petition.”
2

United States v. Torres, 282

F.3d 1241, 1245-46 (10th Cir. 2002)(quoting United States v.
Kelly, 235 F.3d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir. 2000)).

Accordingly, the

court will dismiss this § 2241 action without prejudice for lack
of jurisdiction and does not construe it as a motion under
§2255.
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ordered this matter is
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the petitioner.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Topeka, Kansas, this 8th day of September, 2011.

S/ Richard D. Rogers
RICHARD D. ROGERS
United States Senior District Judge

3