MILLAN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 1:2011cv01613 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on 9/3/2011. (ls, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FILED SEP - 8 2011 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA James F. McMillan, Petitioner, v. United States of America, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. Clerk. U.S. District &Bankruptcy Courts for the District of ColumbIa 11 161a 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, N [an] application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to 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 ~~&; Date: 4·tt., 15 ;I-;G. . Unitld ltates District Judge 3 ,2011 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
