FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NOV - 3 2011
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ClerK. U.S Distl!ct & Bankruptcy
Courts fur the Oistrict of Columbia
Thomas Franklin Cross, Jr., )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No .... ~ .l ~J 1: I
)
United States of America e! aI., )
)
Respondents. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This action was submitted pro se on a form captioned "Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody." Although petitioner is incarcerated in a
North Carolina correctional facility, he is challenging a judgment of conviction he asserts was
entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Pet. ~ 1. In
addition, petitioner has submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The COUl1 will
grant the application to proceed informa pauperis and will dismiss the case for lack of
jurisdiction.
Petitioner claims that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance
of counsel on appeal, see Pet. ~ 12, and he seeks vacation of the conviction, id. at 15. Such a
claim arising from a federal conviction must be presented to the sentencing court by motion filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which states:
[a] prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress
claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in
violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States ... or is otherwise subject
to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set
aside or correct the sentence.
28 U.S.c. § 2255(a). Moreover,
N
[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is authorized
to apply for reliefby motion pursuant to [28 U.S.C. § 2255], shall not be entertained
if it appears that the applicant has failed to apply for relief, by motion, to the court
which sentenced him, or that such court has denied him relief, unless it also appears
that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). This Court did not sentence petitioner and he has not shown that his
available remedy is inadequate or ineffective. To the extent that petitioner has already been
denied such relief, see Pet. at 6, he must seek permission from" the appropriate court of appeals"
to file a successive petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). This Court lacks jurisdiction over the instant
petition and, therefore, will dismiss the case. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum
Opinion.
Date: October 2~ ,2011
2