WINTERHALTER v. US DEPT OF JUSTICE et al, No. 1:2023cv00547 - Document 4 (D.D.C. 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 03/06/2023. (zljn)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
WINTERHALTER v. US DEPT OF JUSTICE et al Doc. 4 Case 1:23-cv-00547-UNA Document 4 Filed 03/06/23 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) FRANKIE DEAN WINTERHALTER, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., ) ) Respondents. ) _________________________________________ ) Civil Action No. 23-0547 (UNA) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Frankie Dean Winterhalter’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) and his pro se Petition for Judicial Review (ECF No. 1). Petitioner, an enrolled member of the Otoe-Missouria Tribe, is in the custody of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections serving a sentence imposed by the Oklahoma State courts for crimes committed within the boundaries of the Pawnee Nation reservation. See Pet. at 1. The Court understands Petitioner to assert that the Oklahoma courts lacked jurisdiction over his criminal case, yet he remains incarcerated. See id. at 2. He asks the Court, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), see 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., “review . . . Respondents’ failure to investigate, and, if necessary, prosecute Oklahoma state officials” responsible for his “illegal detention,” Compl. at 3. Petitioner has no cause of action under the APA, which provides for judicial review only if “there is no other adequate remedy.” 5 U.S.C. § 704. Insofar as petitioner demands release 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:23-cv-00547-UNA Document 4 Filed 03/06/23 Page 2 of 2 from custody, “[t]hat demand is certainly cognizable through the writ of habeas corpus.” Vetcher v. Sessions, 316 F. Supp. 3d 70, 78 (D.D.C. 2018) (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973)); see Stern v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 601 F. Supp. 2d 303, 305 (D.D.C. 2009) (concluding that the availability of habeas relief under § 2241 precluded an APA claim because “the APA does not allow a claim unless ‘there is no other adequate remedy in a court’” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The Court will grant petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the petition and this civil action. An Order is issued separately. /s/ RANDOLPH D. MOSS United States District Judge DATE: March 6, 2023 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
