Samuel Dowell v. United States of America

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAMUEL DOWELL,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 19-35110
D.C. No. 3:18-cv-01939-BR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 21, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Samuel Dowell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his
“Extraordinary Writ Challenge.” We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo, see United States v. Walgren, 885 F.2d 1417, 1420 (9th Cir.
1989), and we affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAY 28 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-35110
Dowell contends that the district court erred in concluding that he was
attempting to attack his conviction. Rather, he argues that he was seeking a “class
action civil writ” under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 based on the unconstitutionality of the
federal statutes proscribing child pornography, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2250-2260. As an
initial matter, Dowell points to no authority suggesting that 28 U.S.C. § 1651 is a
proper vehicle for such an action. Moreover, child pornography is not protected by
the First Amendment, see New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 764 (1982), and the
Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to criminalize its intrastate possession, see
United States v. Sullivan, 797 F.3d 623, 631-32 (9th Cir. 2015). The district court,
therefore, properly denied relief.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --