Jones v. Wainwright

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AUG - 8 20U
Clerk, U.S. District and
Demetrius Jones, Jr., ) Bankruptcy Courts
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ). Civil Action No.
) 11 I-lJl
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); 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.), 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 § 23-11 O(g). Petitioner unsuccessfully sought relief on direct appeal and under § 23-
110, 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 FJd 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.
Date: August L, 2011
2