McMillan v. United States ( 2011 )


Menu:
  • '§§rz
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FoR THE Drsrmcr oF CoLUMBIA \QV 1 b 'Zl)ll
    gm u.-§¢ 91 ° 3
    James F. Mcl\/Iillan, )
    )
    Petitioner, )
    )
    v. g C1v1l Act1on No. »` y ;
    United States of America, )
    )
    Respondent. )
    MEMORANDUM OPH\IION
    This action, brought pro se, is before the Court on the petitioner’s application for a writ of
    habeas corpus, accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will
    grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the case for lack of
    jurisdiction.
    'l`he petitioner is a prisoner at the United States Penitentiary McCreary in Pine Knot,
    Kentucky. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his sodomy conviction
    entered by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. See Petition for Writ of Habeas
    Corpus by a Person in Custody in the District of Columbia at 2, 5-6.
    lt is established that challenges to a Superior Court judgment of conviction must be
    pursued in that court under 
    D.C. Code § 23-1
     10, see Blair-Bey v. Quick, 
    151 F.3d 1036
    , 1042-43
    (D.C. Cir. 1998); Byra’ v. Henderson, 
    119 F.3d 34
    , 36-37 (D.C. Cir. 1997), and that absent a
    showing of an inadequate or ineffective local remedy, "a District of Columbia prisoner has no
    recourse to a federal judicial forum." Garris v. Lindsay, 
    794 F.2d 722
    , 726 (D.C. Cir. 1986),
    cert. a’erziea', 
    479 U.S. 993
     (1986) (internal footnote omitted). Under District of Columbia law,
    [an] application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to
    A/
    apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section shall not be entertained by . . . any
    Federal . . . court if it appears . . . that the Superior Court has denied him relief, unless
    it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the
    legality of his detention.
    
    D.C. Code §23-110
    (g). The petitioner has not shown that his local remedy is inadequate to
    address his claims. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the instant petition. A separate
    Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
    United States District Judge
    /
    Date: Novembei;\y/t/. , 2011
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2011-2026

Judges: Judge Beryl A. Howell

Filed Date: 11/16/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014