Martinez v. United States

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: July 18, 2014
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2014-1213
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F E L E FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JUL 1 3 2915.; ) Clerk, U.S. District DOMINGO MARTINEZ, ) Bankruptcy Courts ) Petitioner. ) ) v ) Civil Action No. , .) x4 / UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Respondent. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s application to proceed infbrma pauperis and his pro se Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody. He is serving a prison sentence of 96 months upon his criminal conviction in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. See Pet’s Mot. W 1—5. He asserts a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and his innocence of the crimes to which he pled guilty. See generally id. 11 12. He demands a new trial. See id. at 17.

“Under DC. Code § 23-] 10, a prisoner may seek to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence on any of four grounds: (1) the sentence is unconstitutional or illegal; (2) the Superior Court did not have jurisdiction to impose the sentence; (3) the sentence exceeded the maximum authorized by law; or (4) the sentence is subject to collateral attack.” Alston v. United States, 590 A.2d 51 1, 513 (DC. 1991). Such a motion must be filed in the Superior Court. see DC. Code § 23-110(a), and “shall not be entertained . . . by any Federal . . . court if it appears that the [prisoner] has failed to make a motion for

relief under this section or that the Superior Court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the

W

remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” DC. Code § 23— 110(g); see Williams v. Martinez, 586 F.3d 995, 998 (DC. Cir. 2009) (“Section 23-1 lO(g)‘s plain language makes clear that it only divests federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas petitions by prisoners who could have raised viable claims pursuant to section 23-] 10(a).”). Petitioner has no

recourse in this federal district court, and, therefore, the Court will deny the petition and dismiss this action.

An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE- 9 :va‘“\w L L United States istrict Judge