Lead Opinion
Defendant Secretary of the Navy appeals an order of the district court denying his motion to dismiss and his motion for summary judgment and granting plaintiff Monk’s motion for summary judgment. Because the district court lacked jurisdiction over Monk’s action, we reverse and remand this case to the district court with instructions to grant the Secretary’s motion to dismiss.
I.
Appellee, Monk, was a corporal in the United States Marine Corps serving on active duty at Camp Pendleton, California. In February, 1978, Monk was charged with murdering his wife, a violation of article 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 918 (1982). Monk was tried before a general court-martial and found guilty on May 17, 1978. He was sentenced to be dishonorably discharged from the service, to forfeit all pay and allowances, and to be confined at hard labor for thirty years.
Monk’s conviction and sentence were affirmed by both the Navy Court of Military Review, see United States v. Martin,
In June 1983, Monk filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia challenging his conviction on various constitutional grounds. Monk prayed
The Secretary moved to dismiss on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction. The Secretary argued that Monk’s action was, in effect, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus subject to the jurisdictional requirements of the federal habeas corpus statute. The district court denied the motion, holding that Monk could “seek civilian review outside the scope of a habeas corpus action.” Monk v. Secretary of the Navy, Civ. Action No. 83-1853, mem.op. at 4 (D.D.C. Oct. 5, 1984), J.A. at 14. In the alternative, the court held that even if the action is viewed as a petition for habeas corpus, jurisdiction was proper since Monk’s “ultimate custodian,” the Secretary of the Navy, was within the District of Columbia. See id. at 4-6, J.A. at 14-16. We consider two questions: whether Monk’s action must be treated as a petition for habeas corpus and, if so, whether the district court properly asserted jurisdiction.
II.
Monk brought this challenge, alleging jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 2201 (1982), the general federal question and declaratory judgment provisions. The Secretary argues, as he did below, that Monk’s challenge must be treated as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. “Appellee has actually attempted to mount a collateral attack on his court-martial conviction” and “[ajlthough there is no specific request to be released from confinement, it is clear that this ultimate relief must flow directly from the declaratory relief sought in this case.” Brief for Appellant at 5. Monk contends that habeas corpus is not the exclusive means by which he may collaterally attack his conviction. His argument is that he “simply sought to have his conviction invalidated. He did not seek, nor did the district court grant, immediate release from custody.” Brief for Appellee at 10.
We agree with the Secretary that Monk’s action must be construed as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It is immaterial that Monk has not requested immediate release. If Monk receives the relief requested — a declaratory judgment that the conviction is invalid and an order directing the Secretary to vacate and annul his conviction and sentence — the additional relief of immediate release or a new trial would follow automatically since, in a second action for a writ of habeas corpus, the prior judgment would have res judicata effect. In adopting the federal habeas corpus statute, Congress determined that habeas corpus is the appropriate federal remedy for a prisoner who claims that he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution ... of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) (1982). This specific determination must override the general terms of the declaratory judgment and federal question statutes. Cf. Preiser v. Rodriguez,
Monk stresses that his complaint also sought back pay, the equivalent of damages, and that this relief is not available in a habeas corpus proceeding. See Brief for Appellee at 10 (citing Preiser,
Our analysis is entirely consistent with Preiser v. Rodriguez,
The Preiser Court expressly limited its holding to cases in which the relief requested would result in the prisoner’s immediate, or more speedy, release from prison. Thus, the Court was careful to distinguish claims for damages resulting from similar post-conviction action:
If a state prisoner is seeking damages, he is attacking something other than the fact or length of his confinement, and he is seeking something other than immediate or more speedy release — the traditional purpose of habeas corpus. In the case of a damages claim, habeas corpus is not an appropriate or available federal remedy. Accordingly, ... a damages action by a state prisoner could be brought under the Civil Rights Act in federal court without any requirement of prior exhaustion of state remedies.
This distinction was dispositive in Wolff v. McDonnell,
That Monk included a request for back pay in his complaint does not in any way alter our conclusion that his challenge to his conviction must be treated as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Preiser did not alter the premise that habeas corpus is a prisoner’s exclusive method for collaterally attacking the validity of his conviction pursuant to which he is incarcerated. Rather, Preiser considered a question one step removed: whether habeas corpus is also the exclusive method by which prisoners may challenge post-conviction action by correctional officers where the relief requested would result in the prisoner’s immediate or more speedy release from prison. Taken together, Preiser and Wolff establish that when a prisoner challenges action other than his underlying conviction, the nature of the relief requested deter
Though both Monk and the prisoners in Wolff sought damages, the nature of the state action that gave rise to their damages provides the crucial distinction. In Wolff, the prisoners sought damages which resulted from the state's use of allegedly unconstitutional procedures in revoking good-time credits — state action wholly independent of the prisoners’ convictions. Determining the validity of the procedures (as a predicate to awarding damages), of course, does not implicate the validity of the prisoners’ convictions. By contrast, Monk seeks damages that result directly from the fact of his conviction. In order to grant the damages Monk requests, therefore, the court must first determine the validity of Monk’s conviction. But this determination, unlike the one involved in Wolff, might result in Monk’s release from prison and, therefore, must be made in an action for habeas corpus.
III.
Monk next argues that even if his action must be characterized as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the district court nevertheless properly exercised jurisdiction. Monk claims that jurisdiction lies not only in the judicial district in which his immediate custodian is located, but also in the district where the “ultimate custodian” resides. See Brief for Appellee at 11. Thus, Monk asserts that application in the District of Columbia is proper and that, in arguing to the contrary, “[t]he Secretary attempts to confuse jurisdiction with venue. Id. (emphasis in original).
We cannot accept Monk’s argument. The statute provides that “[wjrits of habe-as corpus may be granted by ... the district courts ... within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) (1982). Originally, this language was interpreted to mean that jurisdiction was proper only in the district in which the petitioner was located, usually the district of incarceration. See Ahrens v. Clark,
As noted at the outset, Monk is incarcerated at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
Our decision today is controlled by Sanders v. Bennett,
Guerra v. Meese,
In short, Monk’s argument that the Secretary can be considered his custodian for purposes of habeas corpus is no different from the claim that the Attorney General is the custodian of all federal prisoners. In Sanders, we rejected the latter claim, and today we reject the former.
In his reply brief, the Secretary states that in light of Van Drasek v. Lehman,
The Federal Courts Improvement Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2) (1982), provides that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from final decisions of a district court if that court’s jurisdiction was based “in whole or in part” on the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) (1982). As we explained in Van Drasek,
for a claim in the district court to be based on the Tucker Act, it must (1) seek money (2) not exceeding $10,000 (3) from the United States and (4) be founded either upon a contract or upon a provision of “the Constitution, or any Act of Congress, or any regulation of an executive department,” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), that “can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government for the damages sustained.”
In Van Drasek, a Marine Corps captain brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the Marine Selection Board’s decision not to promote him to the rank of major and seeking reconsideration and back pay in the amount of $9,999. The district court denied all relief and Van Dra-sek sought to appeal the decision to this court. We found that the district court’s jurisdiction was based in part on 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) and that, therefore, the federal circuit had exclusive jurisdiction over the appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2).
Monk’s complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as “all back pay and allowances which he would have received, but did not receive because of [his] prosecution and conviction.” J.A. at 9. Though Monk did not specify, we assume that this claim exceeds $10,000 since it represents approximately eight years’ pay. Cf. Doe v. United States Department of Justice,
The district court based its jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 2201 (1982), the general federal question and declaratory judgment provisions, or, in the alternative, on 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq. (1982), the federal habeas corpus provisions. But, since Monk’s claim involves a collateral attack on his conviction, the latter statute provides the exclusive basis for jurisdiction.
It is so ordered.
Notes
. Of course, the Secretary of the Navy is located at the Pentagon, which is in Virginia, not the District of Columbia.
. Monk’s citation of cases such as Ex parte Hayes,
Nor does In re Demjanjuk,
. If Monk were to succeed in having his conviction invalidated in an appropriate action for habeas corpus, he then could maintain an action for back pay either in a district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) (if the claim was for less than $10,000), or in the United States Claims Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (1982). In either case, appeal then would lie exclusively in the federal circuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(2) & (3) (1982).
Concurrence Opinion
concurring:
As the court’s opinion ably demonstrates, the law in this circuit plainly requires that habeas corpus actions be filed where the petitioner’s immediate custodian resides. I therefore concur in the opinion and the decision to dismiss Monk’s complaint because the court lacks jurisdiction.
I write separately, however, to articulate my grave concern that justice has not yet been done in this case. A careful review of the record leaves me firmly convinced that there are critical questions about Monk’s guilt that have never been adequately addressed. Even giving complete deference on credibility questions to the factfinders in the military court, there remain significant inconsistencies in the evidence and in the evidentiary procedures adopted at trial that cannot easily be brushed aside. Findings concerning appellee’s whereabouts at the time of his wife’s death, and the unavailability to Monk of potentially exculpatory information and evidence require, I think, the proper authority to re-examine the finding of guilt.
Absent the necessary jurisdiction, these questions are not properly before us; hence I do not rehearse the arguments presented. I concur separately only to emphasize my feeling that Monk’s complaint raises important issues, ones that deserve careful examination should this case be reviewed elsewhere.