Nelson v. Holder ( 2010 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SHARIFF ATUN EL, :
also known as DOUGLAS NELSON, :
:
Petitioner, :
:
v. : Civil Action No. 09-2340 (EGS)
:
ERIC HOLDER, :
:
Respondent. :
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the Court on petitioner’s pro se petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. It appears that petitioner challenges his current custody at the D.C. Jail arising from two
criminal actions pending in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. See Pet. at 1, 3 (page
numbers designated by the Court). Such a challenge must be brought by motion in the Superior
Court under D.C. Code § 23-110. In relevant part D.C. Code § 23-110 provides:
[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). “Section 23-110 has been found to be adequate and effective because it
is coextensive with habeas corpus.” Saleh v. Braxton, 788 F. Supp. 1232 (D.D.C. 1992); see
Swain v. Pressley, 430 U.S. 372, 375 (1977) (noting that the procedure for collateral review of
Superior Court convictions under § 23-110 “is comparable to that authorized by 28 U.S.C. §
2255 for the United States district courts”). It is settled that “a District of Columbia prisoner has
1
no recourse to a federal judicial forum unless the local remedy is ‘inadequate or ineffective to test
the legality of his detention’” Byrd v. Henderson, 119 F.3d 34, 36-37 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (internal
footnote omitted); Garris v. Lindsay, 794 F.2d 722, 726 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 993(1986).
Petitioner does not demonstrate that the remedy available to him in the Superior Court is
an inadequate or ineffective means to challenge his current custody. Accordingly, the Court will
dismiss the petition without prejudice. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is
issued separately.
SIGNED: Emmet G. Sullivan
United States District Judge
DATE: January 8, 2010