IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-40358
Conference Calendar
RAUL DIAZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM F. WOODS, WARDEN,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-95-CV-490
- - - - - - - - - -
October 23, 1996
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Raul Diaz appeals the dismissal of his petition for habeas
corpus, which he filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Attacks on
the validity of a conviction must be brought under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255, not § 2241, and such claims may be adjudicated only in
the district in which the prisoner was sentenced. Broussard v.
Lippman, 643 F.2d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 452 U.S.
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 96-40358
- 2 -
920 (1981). See also, Cox v. Warden, Federal Detention Ctr., 911
F.2d 1111, 1113 (5th Cir. 1990). The sentencing court in this
case was the District Court for the Western District of Texas,
but Diaz filed his habeas petition in the District Court for the
Southern District of Texas. Appellant’s prior unsuccessful
motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which he filed in the proper
forum, does not entitled him to seek relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. McGhee v. Hanberry, 604 F.2d 9, 10 (5th Cir. 1979). The
district court did not err in dismissing Diaz’s petition.
This appeal is frivolous. We caution Diaz that any
additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the
imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Diaz is further
cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do
not raise arguments that are frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.