Finch v. United States

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: May 5, 2010
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2010-0715
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED

MAY - 5 2010 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT clerk U s District& Bankru c F<)R THE DISTMCT OF COI~UMBIA count far the uaw m @Qiu‘r’n‘bla

Larry Finch, ) ) Petitioner, ) )

v, ) Civil Action No. ,. ,_

) ll /1 0 United States of America, ) ) 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 pauperz`s. The Court will grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction

The petitioner is a prisoner at the Beckley Federal Correctional Institution in Beaver, West Virginia. He challenges his conviction for aggravated assault and assault with a dangerous weapon following a jury trial in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. See Pet. at 2. Petitioner claims, among other wrongs, that his conviction was based on fraudulent testimony and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. He also claims that he is innocent.

lt is well 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. Quz`ck, 151 F.3d 1036, 1042-43 (D.C. Cir. 1998); Byrd v. 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." Garrz`s v. Lz`ndsay, 794 F.Zd 722, 726 (D.C. Cir. 1986),

l.,

cert. denied, 479 U.S. 993 (1986) (intemal 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-l10(g). The Superior Court and the D.C. Court of Appeals have entertained petitioner’s collateral challenges to his conviction See Pet. at 4. The petitioner’s lack of success in those courts, however, does not render his local remedy inadequate or ineffective, see Garrz`s v. Lindsay, 794 F.2d at 727 ; Charles v. Chandler, 180 F.3d 753, 756-58 (6th Cir. l999) (citing cases), and petitioner has provided no other basis for finding the local remedy inadequate. See Wz'llz`ams v. Martinez, 586 F.3d 995, 999 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (concluding that this Court would have jurisdiction over a "federal habeas petition asserting ineffective assistance of appellate counsel after [the petitioner has] moved to recall the mandate in the D.C. Court of Appeals[.]"). This

Court therefore lacks authority to entertain the petition.‘

v States District Judge

Daie; Aprii 2010

’ A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.