Nixon v. Obama
Filing
4
Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The dismissal is without prejudice to any habeas corpus claims Plaintiff may have. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 7/3/2014. (JLG)
PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
MARK A. NIXON,
Plaintiff,
v.
PRESIDENT BARACK H. OBAMA,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 4:14CV0413
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
On February 24, 2014, Pro se Plaintiff Mark A. Nixon, a federal inmate at the Northeast
Ohio Correctional Center, filed this civil rights action against President Barack H. Obama.
Plaintiff asserts his federal convictions are invalid because federal courts do not have jurisdiction
over federal criminal prosecutions.1 On that basis, he seeks damages and immediate release from
custody.
A district court is expressly required to dismiss any civil action filed by a prisoner
seeking relief from a governmental officer or entity, as soon as possible after docketing, if the
court concludes the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if the
1
Jurisdiction over criminal offenses against the United States is vested in the
federal district courts pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. See, e.g., Dury v. United States, No.
1:12-cv-00351-MR, 2014 WL 2159037, at *4 (W.D.N.C. May 23, 2014); Mack v. United
States, No. 2:07-cv-800-FTM-29SPC, 2008 WL 5427804, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 30,
2008) (citing United States v. Abdullah, 289 F. App’x 541, 543 n. 1 (3d Cir. 2008)
(finding that “[t]he 1948 amendment to [Section 3231], Public Law 80-772, passed both
houses of Congress and was signed into law by President Truman on June 25, 1948”)
(citing United States v. Risquet, 426 F. Supp.2d 310, 311 (E.D. Pa. 2006)).
(4:14CV0413)
plaintiff seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A; Siller v. Dean, No. 99-5323, 2000 WL 145167, at *2 (6th Cir. Feb.1, 2000).
Plaintiff is explicitly challenging the validity of his convictions and resulting confinement
in a correctional institution. The Supreme Court has held that when a prisoner challenges “the
very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, . . . his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas
corpus.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973).
Accordingly, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The dismissal is
without prejudice to any habeas corpus claims Plaintiff may have. The Court certifies, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 3, 2014
Date
2
/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides:
An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in
writing that it is not taken in good faith.
2
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?