Ellison v. Quinn

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: June 10, 2014
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2014-0983
• Status: Published

Opinion

ill/ti

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FILED

Bennie K. Ellison, ) _]UN 1 0 2014 ) Clerk, g 5 m Petitioner, ) C°"NS forth gtrm& Bankrup;¢y ) e zsrrm;@¢co,umb{a v ) Civil Action No. ) ' . _ > ¢4~ 452 /t>rte) Governor Pat Quinn et al., ) g ) Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has submitted a document captioned "Multi-District Litigation Habeas Corpus Petition," along with an application to proceed in_forma pauperis The Court will grant the application to proceed z`n_fc)rma pauperis and will dismiss the case for lack ofjurisdiction.

Petitioner is an lllinois state prisoner incarcerated at a correctional facility in Sumner, lllinois. He challenges the United States Supreme Court’s apparent refusal to review decisions denying his state habeas petition and then proceeds to challenge his conviction. See Petition at 1-2. This Court is not a reviewing court, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 133 1, 1332 (general jurisdictional provisions); F/eming v. Um`led Stares, 847 F. Supp. 17(), 172 (D.D.C. 1994), cert denied 513 U.S. 1150 (1995) (citing Dislrz'cl ofColumbia Court ofAppea/s' v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Rooker v. Fia'e/ily Trust C0., 263 U.S. 413, 415, 416 (1923)). and it certainly has no authority to review the decisions ofthe Supreme Court. See Panko v. Rodak, 606 F.Zd 168, 171 n.6 (7th Cir. 1979), cert denied, 444 U.S. 1081 (1980) ("lt seems axiomatic that a lower court

may not order thejudges or officers ofa higher court to take an action.").

ln addition, federal court review of state convictions is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 only after the exhaustion of state remedies. See 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 ofa 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 [petitioner] and each of such district courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the application." 28 U.S.C. § 224l(d). lf, as the petition suggests, petitioner has previously adjudicated his habeas claims, he must seek permission from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to file a successive petition in the appropriate district court in lllinois. See ia’. § 2244(b). Because the petitioner has no recourse in the District of Columbia, this action will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this l\/lemorandum

Opinion.

¢

United S(tates District Judge

Date: May ,2014