UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DARRELL LAMONT BAILEY,
Petitioner,
v. Civil Action No. 18-848 (RDM)
JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner is a federal prisoner who is currently incarcerated at the United States
Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado. In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Bailey alleges that
his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) is invalid and that the sentencing court had no
jurisdiction over his case. Dkt. 1 at 2–3. He also alleges that he was improperly sentenced for
having violated 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) because, in his view, that section requires that the defendant
have been convicted of violating both 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b), yet he was
convicted for a violation of only 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Id. Finally, although difficult to follow,
he also appears to allege that “clerks” unlawfully served as “de facto judges” in handling various
aspects of his case. Id. at 4 (“Clerks did paperwork,” “chambers of Judges sent” or “[r]eturned
. . . filings”).
Bailey’s legal theories are not pellucid. It is clear, however, that he seeks the invalidation
of his previous convictions. Id. at 5. Such a challenge, however, must be brought under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 in the court that imposed the sentence. Day v. Trump, 860 F.3d 686, 691 (D.C.
Cir. 2017) (describing § 2255 as “ordinarily the sole remedy for a federal prisoner challenging
the legality of his conviction or sentence”); see also 28 U.S.C. §2255(a) (“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 that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence . . . may move the court
which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correct the sentence.”).
Although courts often transfer habeas petitions that have been filed in the wrong district,
doing so here would serve no purpose, because Bailey cannot file another petition under § 2255
without appellate court authorization. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (“A second or successive motion
must be certified as provided by in section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals
. . . .”); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (“Before a second or successive application permitted by this
section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals
for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.”); Burton v. Stewart, 549
U.S. 147, 157 (2007) (holding that district courts lack jurisdiction to consider “second or
successive” petitions under § 2244 when petitioners have not first obtained authorization from
the relevant court of appeals); United States v. Bailey, No. 94 C 6832, 1995 WL 302441, at *10
(N.D. Ill. May 16, 1995) (denying a previous petition brought under § 2255 challenging Bailey’s
original conviction and sentence).
The Court will, accordingly, DENY Bailey’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Dkt. 1.
A separate order will issue.
/s/ Randolph D. Moss
RANDOLPH D. MOSS
United States District Judge
Date: April 18, 2018
2