United States District Court, D. Hawaii
CHRISTOPHER SANDERS, BOP REG. #62316-066, AND THE SANDERS FAMILY, Plaintiffs,
THE CITY AND STATE OF H. HAWAII, AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AND DENYING IN FORMA PAUPERIS
DERRICK K. WATSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the court is pro se Plaintiff Christopher Sanders'
Complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”). Sanders is confined at the Federal
Correctional Institution (“FCI”) - McKean,
located in Bradford, Pennsylvania. Sanders complains that
Defendants have negligently and fraudulently denied him due
process and violated the Eighth Amendment since 2016 by
“holding back [his] 2255 Motion by Request To
Philadelphia, PA etc.” Compl., ECF No. 1. Sanders
provides no further details regarding this claim.
court lacks jurisdiction over Sanders' claims, and he may
not proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This
action is DISMISSED, and Sanders' IFP application is
LACK OF JURISDICTION
6, 2009, the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania sentenced Sanders to 240 months
imprisonment on seventeen separate charges. See United
States v. Sanders, Cr. No. 07-430-1 (E. Dist. Pa.,
2009). On June 8, 2016, Sanders, through the Federal
Community Defender's Office for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, filed a Motion to Correct Sentence. That Motion
is still pending and Sanders believes that
“Defendants” are somehow impeding its resolution.
intent in filing this pleading in the District of Hawaii is
unclear. If he seeks resolution in the District of Hawaii
regarding his pending Motion to Correct Sentence, this court
lacks jurisdiction. A federal prisoner may challenge the
manner, location, or conditions of a sentence's execution
by filing a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the
“custodial court” -- that is, the court of the
district in which he is incarcerated. Stephens v.
Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2006);
Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864-65 (9th
Cir. 2000). If the prisoner challenges the legality of his
conviction or sentence, a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255,
filed in the court of conviction, is the exclusive means by
which he may test the legality of his detention.
Stephens, 464 F.3d at 897; Tripati v.
Henman, 843 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1988). A
federal court may not consider granting or denying relief in
a habeas action over which it has no jurisdiction.
Hernandez, 204 F.3d at 865. Sanders was not
prosecuted, convicted, or imprisoned in Hawaii. As far as can
be determined from his pleading and the court's records,
Sanders has no connection to Hawaii. This court lacks
jurisdiction to consider Sanders' claims regarding his
conviction or sentence.
extent Sanders seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania to address his Motion to Correct
Sentence more expeditiously, this court also lacks
jurisdiction to do so. While “district courts shall
have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of
mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United
States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the
plaintiff, ” 28 U.S.C. § 1361, mandamus is not a
substitute for an appeal from a decision by a district court.
See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367,
380-81 (2004). A writ of mandamus may be used “to
confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its
prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its
authority when it is its duty to do so.” In re Diet
Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 418 F.3d 372, 378 (3d Cir.
2005) (citation omitted)
District of Hawaii is not a court “superior” to
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, cannot sit as a
quasi-appellate court over that district court, and has no
jurisdiction or duty to compel the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, its U.S. Attorney, or any other federal
officers in that district to take action in Sanders'
pending Motion to Correct Sentence. If Sanders seeks an order
directing the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to issue a
decision regarding his pending Motion to Correct Sentence, he
must pursue such relief with the Court of Appeals for the
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
extent Sanders seeks damages from Defendants for some alleged
violation of his civil rights pertaining to his pending
Motion to Correct Sentence, he is foreclosed from proceeding
IFP. A prisoner may not bring a civil action or appeal if he
has “on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated
or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a
court of the United States that was dismissed” as
frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, unless
he or she “is under imminent danger of serious physical
injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). “[Section]
1915(g) should be used to deny a prisoner's IFP status
only when, after careful evaluation of the order dismissing
an action, and other relevant information, the district court
determines that the action was dismissed because it was
frivolous, malicious or failed to state a claim.”
Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir.
2005). The imminent danger exception only “applies if
the complaint makes a plausible allegation that the prisoner
faced ‘imminent danger of serious physical injury'
at the time of filing.” Andrews v. Cervantes,
493 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2007).
has accrued at least three strikes while a prisoner pursuant
to § 1915(g). See Sanders v. United States,
Civ. No. 17-2909 (N.D. Ill. May 12, 2017) (dismissed as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim); Sanders v.
United States, Civ.No. 17-277 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 23, 2017)
(dismissed as “legally frivolous”); Sanders
v. United States, Civ. No. 17-1110 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 27,
2017) (dismissed as frivolous); see also Sanders v.
United States, Civ. No. 17-252 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2017)
(treating Sanders as a “threestriker”). Nothing
within Sanders' pleading suggests that he is in imminent
danger of serious physical injury, and his IFP applications
Sanders fails to state any coherent civil rights claim. And,
nothing within his pleading explains why venue over any civil
rights claim he might allege in this pleading arises in the
District of Hawaii. Sanders states that the alleged illegal
delay in his Motion to Correct Sentence began when he was
incarcerated at FCI-Fort Butner, in North Carolina, and is
continuing in FCI-McKean, in Bradford, Pennsylvania.
Plaintiff does not state a colorable claim, and it is evident
that he cannot state such a claim in connection to his Motion
to Correct Sentence where venue would ever be proper in
Hawaii. Sanders' action is DISMISSED, and because
amendment is futile, this dismissal is without leave to
amend. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th
Cir. 2000) (allowing dismissal without leave to amend when
amendment is futile).
this Court lacks jurisdiction over Sanders' claims, and
he may not proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),
this action is DISMISSED without leave to amend, and
Sanders' IFP application is DENIED. Any pending motions
are DENIED as moot. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close ...