United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
KATHRYN H. VRATIL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
is an inmate at United States Penitentiary in Leavenworth,
Kansas. On December 14, 2017, he filed suit against the
United States Marshals Service and Ron Miller, a United
States Marshal, in the District Court of Leavenworth County,
Kansas. Civil Action Under 28 U.S.C. § 2410
(Doc. #1-1) filed January 4, 2018 at 1. Plaintiff seeks
immediate release from prison because he has
“surrendered a certified copy of a final judgment to
the defendants, to foreclose the mortgage” on his
person. Id. Plaintiff alleges that he satisfied his
criminal judgment through a monetary payment and thus should
be released from custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2410 -
a statute which governs causes of actions concerning property
on which the United States has a lien. Id. He
supports this allegation with a copy of his criminal judgment
stamped: “Exempt From Levy . . . ACCEPTED FOR VALUE,
” dated September 25, 2017. Id. at 3.
January 4, 2018, defendants removed plaintiff's suit to
this Court. Notice Of Removal (Doc. #1). This action
is before the Court on Defendants' Motion To
Dismiss (Doc. #4) filed January 5, 2018.
assert that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction or,
in the alternative, that plaintiff fails to state a
cognizable claim. Memorandum In Support Of United
States' Motion To Dismiss (Doc. #5) filed January 5,
2018 at 2. In particular, defendants assert that (1)
plaintiff cannot buy his release from prison, id. at
4; (2) plaintiff must challenge his sentence under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255, not 28 U.S.C. § 2410, id. at 4-5;
(3) the Court lacks jurisdiction because plaintiff has not
alleged any grounds to modify his prison term pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c), id. at 5-6; (4) defendants do
not have authority to release plaintiff from custody,
id. at 6; and (5) due to sovereign immunities,
defendants cannot be sued in their official capacity,
id. at 7-8.
January 17, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion which asserts that
he paid a “legally approved corporate surety” and
thus should be released. See Doc. #7 (motion not
titled). The Court construes this as his response to
defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's motion
does not refute the government's arguments in favor of
dismissal. Thus, for substantially the reasons stated by
defendants, the Court dismisses plaintiff's complaint
IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Motion
To Dismiss (Doc. #4) filed January 5, 2018 is
IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's
Motion (Doc. #9) filed February 2, 2018 and
Motion For Summary Judgment (Doc. #13) filed March
7, 2018 are OVERRULED as moot in light of
this order, which dismisses plaintiff's complaint with
 On February 2, 2018, plaintiff filed a
Motion (Doc. #9), which seeks attorney's fees.
On March 7, 2018, plaintiff filed a Motion For Summary
Judgment (Doc. #13), which does not comply with District
of Kansas Local Rule 56.1. See D. Kan.Rule 56.1.
Defendants oppose both motions. See Defendants'
Response To Crawford's “Motion” (Doc. 9)
(Doc. #10) filed February 7, 2018; see Defendants'
Response To Crawford's “Motion For Summary
Judgment” (Doc. 13) (Doc. #14) filed March 8,
 Defendants ask the Court to (1) find
that this case is frivolous and (2) place defendant on notice
of the Court's ability to sanction him for filing
frivolous civil cases. Memorandum In Support (Doc.
#5) at 8-9. The Court considers a document
“frivolous” when it lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490
U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (frivolous complaints include
“fanciful factual allegation[s]” or
“inarguable legal conclusion[s]”). The fact that
a party attaches exhibits to a motion does not show that the
motion has an arguable basis in law or fact.
Defendant's basic contention - i.e. that
he can satisfy his criminal judgment and shorten his prison
sentence through monetary payments - lacks any basis in law.
Further, defendant has “an extensive record of
frivolous filings.” United States v. Crawford,
Crim. No. 05-294 (JRT/AJB), 2009 WL 1096050, at *1 (D. Minn.
Apr. 22, 2009); see also Memorandum In Support (Doc.
#5) at 1-2 n.1 (summarizing plaintiff's prior filings in
the District of Kansas). The Court finds that plaintiff's
complaint is frivolous, see Doc. #1-1, and retains
authority to sanction plaintiff for frivolous filings in the
future. Fed. R. Civ. P 11(c).
Finally, to the extent plaintiff challenges his
conviction or sentence, he must seek relief in the district
that imposed his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166-67 (10th Cir.
1996). Because the District of Minnesota sentenced plaintiff,
the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant relief from his
conviction or sentence. United States v. Crawford,
487 F.3d 1101 (10th Cir. 2007); see Bradshaw, 86
F.3d at 167. The Court declines to transfer plaintiff's
action to the sentencing jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1631 because his claims lack merit and transferring
his suit would not further “the interests of