Luckey v. United States of America

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: February 18, 2016
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2015-1609
• Status: Published

Opinion

F§E..§D

UNITED sTATEs Dlsrkrcr CoURT FEB l 8 2915

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _C»'€'K, U,S. r"».*s.‘»'.‘ct 53 Ea~wkruptcy courts for the ?\§ir§ct of iif:lum&,~i.q

Melvin Lee Luckey, ) )

Plaintiff, )

)

v ) Civil Action No. 15-1609 (UNA)

United States of America et al., ) )

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is a North Carolina state prisoner incarcerated in Maury, North Carolina. He alleges that the United States and an individual in North Carolina conspired to deny him access to the court by "fail[ing] to liberally construe his 2254 habeous [sic] out of time as a colorable claim of actual innocence [.]" Compl. at l. Plaintiff asks this Court to "set aside" his convictions and re-sentence him. Id. at 2. The Court will grant the accompanying application to proceed in forma pauperis and, for the reasons explained below, will dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction

F ederal court review of a sentence imposed by a state court is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after the exhaustion of state remedies. See 28 U.S.C. §2254(b)(l). Thereafter, "an application for a writ of habeas corpus [] made by a person in custody under the judgment and sentence of a 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 [where the sentencing court sits] and each of such district courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the application." 28 U.S.C.

§ 224l(d). Plaintiff must pursue habeas relief in an appropriate court in North Carolina. See

Williams v. Hill, 74 F.3d 1339, 1340 (D.C. Cir. l996) (finding it "Well-settled that a prisoner seeking relief from his conviction or sentence may not bring [ ] an action" for injunctive and declaratory relief) (citations omitted)). Hence this civil action will be dismissed without

prejudice. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: February , 2016 Unit Sta e ist 1ct Judge

z»Z/M»q