Jokhoo v. Bell

Background

Khemall Jokhoo filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking relief concerning his criminal conviction, sentence, and supervised-release revocation. In 2014, he was convicted of multiple counts of mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, aggravated identity theft, and false personation of a United States officer or employee. He received a 175-month prison sentence followed by five years of supervised release.

After his release from prison, Jokhoo was found to have violated several special and standard conditions of supervised release. He was sentenced to 12 months in a Bureau of Prisons facility. LeAnn K. Bell, an Assistant United States Attorney, was counsel of record for the government in Jokhoo’s underlying criminal case and appeared for the government at the supervised-release revocation hearing. Jokhoo had a direct appeal of the revocation pending when he filed this action.

Claims and Recommended Disposition

Jokhoo argued that the criminal court lacked jurisdiction over the supervised-release revocation. His claims asserted that Bell violated the Appointments Clause and her oath of office by seeking revocation without first establishing the government’s standing; that his original imprisonment was unlawful because the federal criminal code was not an “Act of Congress”; that the government failed to establish federal jurisdiction over the private property where he was arrested; and that these alleged violations caused irreparable harm.

United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz recommended dismissing the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The recommendation concluded that Jokhoo’s claims were challenges to his original conviction, sentence, and supervised-release terms. It stated that he should have raised those challenges on direct appeal or through a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. It also concluded that Jokhoo had not shown that the § 2255 remedy was inadequate or ineffective, which was required for him to proceed under § 2241.

District Court’s Analysis

Jokhoo objected to the recommendation. He argued that Magistrate Judge Schultz lacked authority to address his jurisdictional challenge because Schultz was not an Article III judge. The district court rejected that argument, explaining that Schultz had issued proposed findings and a recommended disposition under 28 U.S.C. § 636 rather than finally adjudicating the petition.

The district court also reviewed Jokhoo’s remaining objections, which repeated the arguments in his petition. The court concluded that none showed that it had jurisdiction to consider the challenges under § 2241. Because Jokhoo had not shown that § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective, the court stated that his challenges could be raised only through a § 2255 motion or a direct appeal from his original conviction and sentence.

Disposition

The court accepted the Report and Recommendation, overruled Jokhoo’s objections, denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.