Dunlap v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JERMAINE JOSEPH DUNLAP, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Civ. No. 23-1011 (UNA)
)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT )
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, )
)
Respondent. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on yet another Petition for a Writ Habeas Corpus (ECF
No. 1) from Jermaine Joseph Dunlap, a California state prisoner, and his application to proceed
in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). Notwithstanding the unintelligible allegations of the petition,
having filed a habeas petition, the Court presumes that petitioner challenges – again – his
conviction and sentence and demands his release from custody.
As petitioner well knows, he has no recourse in this district. See, e.g., Dunlap v. U.S.
District Court in the District of Columbia, No. 23-cv-0461 (D.D.C. Mar. 6, 2023) (dismissing
petition without prejudice for want of jurisdiction); Dunlap v. Dep’t Rev. Bd., No. 14-cv-0145,
2014 WL 414156, at *1 (D.D.C. Jan. 30, 2014) (concluding that “plaintiff has no recourse in
habeas in the District of Columbia”).
Habeas review of a state court conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is available only after
exhaustion of state remedies, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1), and only “in the district court for the
district wherein such person is in custody or in the district court for the district within which the
State court was held which convicted and sentenced [petitioner] and each of such district courts
1
shall have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the application,” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). This
petitioner was convicted and sentenced in California, and he has no recourse in the District of
Columbia.
The Court will grant petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss his
petition without prejudice for want of jurisdiction. A separate Order accompanies this
Memorandum Opinion.
/s/
TANYA S. CHUTKAN
DATE: April 17, 2023 United States District Judge
2