Martin v. United States of America

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: February 25, 2011
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2011-0435
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FTlED

FEB 2 '5 2011 Clerk, U.S. Dlstrlct & Bankruptcy Barry Bemard Martin ) Courts for the Dlstrict of columbia

)

Petitioner, )

v. > civil A¢ti@n N@. 11 ll435

United States of America et al., ) )

Respondents. )

l\/1EMORANDUM OPINION

This matter, brought pro se, is before the Court on its initial review of the mandamus petition accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperz`s. The Court will grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction

Petitioner is an inmate at the District of Columbia Jail based on a parole violator warrant executed in November 20l0. See Pet. at 2. He seeks a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 to compel his "immediate release." Pet. at 7. Because this claim is properly pursued by applying for a writ of habeas corpus directed at petitioner’s warden -- not named in this action -- mandamus reliefis not available. See Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) ("Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus[.]") (citation omitted); Chatman-Bey v. Thorrzburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 806 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (where "habeas is an available and potentially efficacious remedy, it is clear beyond reasonable dispute that mandamus will not appropriately lie"); 28 U.S.C. § 2243 ("The [habeas] writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained."). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this l\/lemorandum Opinion.

am apr

1;1, united states Di§trict Jud§e Date: February.)ff , 201 1