Opinion
Case: 1:15-cv-00779
05-16-2015
Ari Bailey, Plaintiff, v. District of Columbia et. al., Defendants.
Assigned To : Unassigned
Assign. Date : 5/26/2015
Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil (F Deck)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has submitted a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the Court to screen and dismiss a prisoner's complaint upon a determination that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See id. § 1915A(b).
Plaintiff is a District of Columbia prisoner incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. He has submitted a "Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1 and 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b) for Notice, Certification and Intervention" to challenge the constitutionality of D.C. Code § 22-2801 (1981) (repealed by the Anti-Sexual Abuse Act of 1994, D.C. Law 10-257, § 501(a)), which is the statute under which he was convicted of rape. See Bailey v. United States, 699 A.2d 392 (D.C. 1997). Plaintiff states no claim under § 2403(b) or Rule 5.1 because the District of Columbia is a named defendant and the statute permits a State to intervene in an action or suit "in a court of the United States to which a State or any agency, officer, or employee thereof is not a party[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b) (emphasis added); see accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1(a)(1)(B) (requiring "party that files a pleading . . . . drawing into question the constitutionality of a . . . state statute [to] promptly . . . file a notice . . . if: . . . a state statute is questioned and the parties do not include the state, one of its agencies, or one of its officers or employees in an official capacity"). Hence, this case will be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
D.C. Code § 23-110 provides the proper vehicle for plaintiff to challenge the constitutionality of his conviction in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. See Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1042 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (describing § 23-110 as "a remedy analogous to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for prisoners sentenced in D.C. Superior Court who wished to challenge their conviction or sentence").
/s/_________
United States District Judge
Date: May 16, 2015