Kinard v. United States

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedFebruary 12, 2009
DocketCivil Action No. 2009-0282
StatusPublished

This text of Kinard v. United States (Kinard v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kinard v. United States, (D.D.C. 2009).

Opinion

FILED FEB I 2 2009 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NANGY MAYER WHITTINGTON CLERK FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA U.S. DISTR'/&T COURT'

JOSEPH KINARD,

Petitioner,

v. Civil Action No. 09 0282 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

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

Petitioner challenges his conviction in and the sentence imposed by the Superior Court of

the District of Columbia. 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 § 23-110(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

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,

1 794 F.2d 722, 726 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 993 (1986). A prisoner's lack of success in

his previous attempts to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence by means of a motion

under D.C. Code § 23-11 O(g) does not render this remedy inadequate or ineffective. See Wilson

v. Office of the Chairperson, 892 F. Supp. 277, 280 (D.D.C. 1995).

Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the petition without prejudice. An Order consistent

with this Memorandum Opinion will be issued separately on this date.

Date: ~' ~;}/ ~ ~

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Saleh v. Braxton
788 F. Supp. 1232 (District of Columbia, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kinard v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kinard-v-united-states-dcd-2009.