Nabaya v. United States

• Decision Date: 15 July 2021
• Docket Number: 3:21-cv-01190-N-BT
• Parties: SHAPAT NABAYA, Movant, v. UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

SHAPAT NABAYA, Movant, v. UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Respondent.

No. 3:21-cv-01190-N-BT

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

July 15, 2021

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

REBECCA RUTHERFORD, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

MovantShapat Nabaya, a federal prisoner incarcerated at Seagoville FCI in Seagoville, Texas, filed a pro se motion to vacate, set-aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C § 2255.The District Court referred the resulting civil action to the United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference.Nabaya, however, was convicted and sentenced in the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division.Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction over Nabaya's § 2255 motion.The Court should dismiss this civil action and deny any pending motions as moot.

In his amended motion, Nabaya makes several claims against the district judge who presided over his case in the Eastern District of Virginia, including: (1) the judge denied him the protections of the Constitution; (2) the judge denied him the right to confront his accuser; and (3) the judge denied him the right to produce discovery at trial.Am. Mot. (ECF No 6).But a movant must file his § 2255 motion in the court where he was convicted and sentenced.28 U.S.C. § 2255(a)(stating that a prisoner “may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence.”);see alsoPack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 452(5th Cir.2000)(“A section 2255 motion must be filed in the sentencing court”);United States v. Williamson, 469 F.2d 88, 89(5th Cir.1972)(per curiam)(“The collateral attack must be filed in the convicting court.”);Light v. United States, 430 F.2d 932, 933(5th Cir.1970)(per curiam)(finding that a collateral attack on the validity of a conviction must be filed in the convicting court).Indeed only the sentencing court has jurisdiction over § 2255 claims involving errors that occurred before or during sentencing.Ojo v. INS, 106 F.3d 680, 683(5th Cir.1997)(noting that only the sentencing court has jurisdiction to address a § 2255 motion);Solsona v. Warden, F.C.I., 821 F.2d 1129, 1132(5th Cir.1987)(holding that only the sentencing court has jurisdiction to hear a § 2255 motion attacking a sentence).When a district court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a habeas petition, it must dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.Lee v. Wetzel, 244 F.3d 370, 375(5th Cir.2001).

Here, Nabaya's claims are the type claims reserved for § 2255 motions.See28 U.S.C. § 2255(a)(a § 2255 motion raises the following type claims: (1) the right to be released on the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States; (2)the court was without jurisdiction to impose the sentence; (3) the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law; or (4) the sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack);see alsoTolliver v. Dobre,211 F.3d 876, 877-78(5th Cir.2000)(per curiam)(“Section § 2255 is the primary means of collaterally attacking a federal sentence.”)(citingCox v. Warden, Fed. Detention Ctr.,911 F.2d 1111, 1113(5th Cir.1990)).Nabaya, however, was convicted and sentenced in the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division. Am. Mot. 2 (ECF No. 6);see also United States v. Nabaya, No. 3:17-cr-3-MHL-1 (E.D. Va.).Therefore, he must file his § 2255 claims in that district and division.This Court lacks jurisdiction over Nabaya's § 2255 motion.

The Court should DISMISS the motion to vacate, set-aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, seeLee,244 F.3d at 375, and deny any pending motions as moot.

SO RECOMMENDED

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law.Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy.See28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which...