Richardson v. Whitehead ( 2009 )

FILED
'UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEP 162009
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District and
Bankruptcy Courts
Melvin Richardson, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. )
)
Civil Action No.
09 1758
J.D. Whitehead, )
)
Respondent. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
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.
Petitioner is a prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution in Cumberland, Maryland.
He challenges a judgment of conviction entered by the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia following his plea of guilty. See Pet. at 1. Although petitioner has submitted a form
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, 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); Byrdv. 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. 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
3
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 Superior Court and the D.C. Court of Appeals have entertained
petitioner's collateral challenges to his conviction. See Pet. at 3-4. Petitioner's lack of success in
the local courts, however, does not 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), and petitioner has provided no other basis for finding the local remedy inadequate. This
Court therefore lacks authority to entertain the petition. A separate Order of dismissal
accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
~09
United States District Judge
Date: September .
2