Opinion
Civil Action No. 11 1822
10-13-2011
Joseph L. Gallardo, Plaintiff, v. United States Federal Government et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff‘s pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring dismissal of a prisoner's complaint upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted).
Plaintiff is a California prisoner incarcerated in Imperial, California. He seeks a declaration that the time limitation of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA") for challenging criminal convictions is unconstitutional. The Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a petition for a declaratory judgment where, as here, the remedy of habeas corpus is available. LoBue v. Christopher, 82 F.3d 1081, 1082-84 (D.C. Cir. 1996); see Williams v. Hill, 74 F.3d 1339, 1340 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (stating that "it is well-settled that a [person] seeking relief from his conviction or sentence may not bring [actions for injunctive and declaratory relief]") (citations omitted); accord Jackson v. Scalia, 780 F. Supp. 2d 81 (D.D.C. 2011). Furthermore, this Court has no authority to review the decisions of other courts, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332 (general jurisdictional provisions); Fleming v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), cert, denied 513 U.S. 1150 (1995), which this action would necessarily require. See Dogan v. Roe, 8 Fed. Appx. 612, 613 (9th Cir. 2001) (rejecting argument that AEDPA's statute of limitations violates the due process, equal protection, and suspension clauses of the United States Constitution); Compl. at 8-17 (recounting habeas litigation history in the California courts and in the Ninth Circuit). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
________________________________
United States District Judge