Anderson v. Brown

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: May 22, 2024
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2024-1067
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

QUINCY RAHSAAN ANDERSON, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-01067 (UNA) ) ) KIM BROWN, et al., ) ) Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Petitioner appearing pro se is a state inmate who is awaiting sentence, and he is currently

designated to Franklin County Corrections Center, located in Columbus, Ohio. He has filed a

petition for writ of habeas corpus (“Pet.”), ECF No. 1, seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,

and an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. He challenges his

conviction, entered on January 11, 2024, by the Franklin County Common Pleas Court, alleging

that he suffered several constitutional violations, including infringement of his right to speedy trial

and acts of prosecutorial misconduct. See Pet. at 2–3, 6, 8–9, 11. As a result, he demands that the

court vacate his conviction. See id. at 11.

Federal review of state convictions is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 only after the

exhaustion of available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). Thereafter, “an application for a

writ of habeas corpus [ ] made by a person in custody under the judgment and sentence of a State

court . . . may be filed 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 [the petitioner] and each of such district courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to

entertain the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). First, petitioner has, admittedly, not yet exhausted his state remedies. See Pet. at 3, 9.

Indeed, he asserts that his direct appeal before the Ohio Court of Appeals is still pending. See id.

Second, even if petitioner had exhausted his state remedies, he was convicted and sentenced in

Ohio, and is also incarcerated there. See id. at 2. Consequently, after petitioner has exhausted his

state remedies, he must file his § 2254 petition in the United States District Court for the Southern

District of Ohio.

For these reasons, petitioner has no recourse in this District, and his petition will be

dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). A separate order accompanies this

memorandum opinion.

__________/s/_____________ Date: May 22, 2024 AMIT P. MEHTA United States District Judge