Jones v. Wainwright

Full title: Demetrius Jones, Jr., Petitioner, v. Simon Wainwright, Respondent.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Date published: Aug 8, 2011

Civil Action No. 11-1431 (D.D.C. Aug. 8, 2011)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 11-1431

08-08-2011

Demetrius Jones, Jr., Petitioner, v. Simon Wainwright, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This action, brought pro se, is before the Court on 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.

Petitioner is a prisoner at the District of Columbia Jail, challenging his conviction entered by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia following a jury trial. Petitioner claims that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial and challenges the jury instructions. See Pet. at 5-6.

It is established that challenges to a Superior Court judgment of conviction must be pursued in that court under D.C. Code § 23-110, see Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1042-43 (D.C. Cir. 1998); Byrd 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.), cert, denied, 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
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). Petitioner unsuccessfully sought relief on direct appeal and under § 23110, see Pet. at 3, but his lack of success in the District of Columbia courts does not alone render the local remedy inadequate or ineffective. See Garris v. Lindsay, 794 F.2d at 727; Charles v. Chandler, 180 F.3d 753, 756-58 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing cases). Hence, this Court, lacking authority to entertain petitioner's habeas petition, will dismiss the case. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

________________________________

United States District Judge