Millan v. United States

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: September 8, 2011
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2011-1613
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED SEP - 8 2011 Clerk. U.S. District &Bankruptcy UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Courts for the District of ColumbIa FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

James F. McMillan, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 11 161a ) United States of America, ) ) Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This action, brought pro se, is before the Court on the petitioner's application for a writ of

habeas corpus, accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will

grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the case for lack of

jurisdiction.

The petitioner is a prisoner at the United States Penitentiary McCreary in Pine Knot,

Kentucky. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his sodomy conviction

entered by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. See Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus by a Person in Custody in the District of Columbia at 2, 5-6.

It is established that challenges to a Superior Court judgment of conviction must be

pursued in that court under D.C. Code § 23-110, see Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1042-43

(D.C. Cir. 1998); Byrd v. Henderson, 119 F.3d 34, 36-37 (D.C. Cir. 1997), and that absent a

showing of an inadequate or ineffective local remedy, "a District of Columbia prisoner has no

recourse to a federal judicial forum." Garris v. Lindsay, 794 F.2d 722, 726 (D.C. Cir. 1986),

cert. denied, 479 U.S. 993 (1986) (internal footnote omitted). Under District of Columbia law,

[an] application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to

N 3 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 §23-11 O(g). The petitioner has not shown that his local remedy is inadequate to

address his claims. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the instant petition. A separate

Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum ~~&; 15 ;I-;G. . Unitld ltates District Judge

Date: 4·tt., 3 ,2011