Leake v. Dc Superior Court

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: February 9, 2023
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2023-0099
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ROBERT LEAKE, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00099 (UNA) ) DC SUPERIOR COURT CLERK, ) ) Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on its initial review of petitioner’s pro se petition for habeas

corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. Petitioner’s in forma pauperis application will be granted and his

petition will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Petitioner is a federal inmate currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution

in Terre Haute, Indiana. He is a D.C. Code offender who was convicted in the Superior Court of

the District of Columbia in Case No. 2016 CF2 000770. The petition is not a model in clarity, but

it appears that petitioner challenges a detainer or warrant that has been since lodged in those

Superior Court proceedings, which is pending while he serves the sentence for the underlying

conviction. As far as it can be understood, petitioner argues that the government’s alleged failure

to resolve that detainer or warrant now, rather than when he is released from his current

confinement, is a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial. He contends that he has

attempted to seek relief in the District of Columbia local courts to no avail. As a result, he

maintains that he is entitled to the dismissal of those criminal proceedings. Petitioner faces hurdles that he cannot overcome here. First, a petitioner’s “immediate

custodian” is the proper respondent in a § 2241 habeas corpus action. See Rumsfield v. Padilla,

542 U.S. 426, 434–35 (2004); see also Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1039 (D.C. Cir. 1998)

(“[T]he appropriate defendant in a habeas action is the custodian of the prisoner.”) (citing

Chatman-Bey v. Thornburg, 864 F. 2d 804, 810 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (en banc)). Petitioner has

improperly sued the D.C. Superior Court Clerk, instead of his immediate custodian at FCI Terre

Haute. Moreover, “a district court may not entertain a habeas petition involving present physical

custody unless the respondent custodian is within its territorial jurisdiction,” Stokes v. U.S. Parole

Comm’n, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004); see Day v. Trump, 860 F.3d 686, 691 (D.C. Cir.

2017) (affirming dismissal for want of jurisdiction where the District of Columbia was not “the

district of residence of [petitioner’s] immediate custodian for purposes of § 2241 habeas relief”).

Therefore, he must file for such relief against his present custodian in the Southern District of

Indiana. See Robertson v. Merola, 895 F. Supp. 1, 5 (D.D.C. 1995) (dismissing plaintiff’s claims

for, inter alia, violation of his Sixth Amendment rights, arising from an alleged delay in processing

his pending detainers, because this District was “without jurisdiction to entertain any challenge to

the fact or duration of Plaintiff's confinement as such claims are within the exclusive province of

habeas corpus and would therefore have to be brought in the jurisdiction encompassing the place

of confinement.”).

Second, this court generally lacks jurisdiction to review the actions of the Superior Court

or the D.C. Court of Appeals. See Fleming v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994),

cert. denied 513 U.S. 1150 (1995) (following District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,

460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415, 416 (1923)). This is

particularly true here because, as stated by petitioner, the applicable proceedings are “active,” and this court may not violate the fundamental policy against federal interference with ongoing state

criminal prosecutions. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46. (1971); see also 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(1)(a), (d)(2). Thus, petitioner must again attempt to file for relief regarding the alleged

outstanding detainer or warrant in the District of Columbia local courts. See Ciacci v. Hogan,

2012 WL 2501027, at *1 (D.D.C. June 22, 2012) (collecting cases and dismissing plaintiff’s claims

based on the Younger abstention doctrine where plaintiff alleged that his Sixth Amendment right

to speedy trial was violated because he had “yet to appear in court on [a] warrant[.]”), appeal

dismissed, No. 12–5224, 2012 WL 5896801 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 31, 2012).

For these reasons, this habeas action is dismissed without prejudice for want of jurisdiction.

Petitioner’s motion to compel, ECF No. 4, the Superior Court to dismiss his criminal proceedings,

is denied for the same reasons. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

Date: February 9, 2023 __________/s/____________ RUDOLPH CONTRERAS United States District Judge