Hill v. Warden

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: January 27, 2009
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2009-0142
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED JAN 1.'7 2009 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts ERIC RODNEY HILL,

Petitioner,

O~ v. Civil Action No. 0142 WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN, USP,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the Court on petitioner's application to proceed in forma

pauperis and pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus.!

Once again, petitioner challenges his conviction in and the sentence imposed by the

Superior Court of the District of Columbia. And again, the Court concludes that challenges of

this nature must be brought by motion in the Superior Court under D.C. Code § 23-110. In

relevant part D.C. Code § 23-110 provides:

[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 § 23-11O(g). "Section 23-110 has been found to be adequate and effective because it

is coextensive with habeas corpus." Saleh v. Braxton, 788 F. Supp. 1232 (D.D.C. 1992). It is

settled that "a District of Columbia prisoner has no recourse to a federal judicial forum unless

This action was transferred here from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

1 the local remedy is 'inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention'" Byrd v.

Henderson, 119 F.3d 34, 36-37 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (internal footnote omitted); Garris v. Lindsay,

794 F.2d 722, 726 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 993 (1986).

Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the petition. An Order consistent with this

Memorandum Opinion will be issued separately on this date.