WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al, No. 1:2012cv01206 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 7/16/2012. (ls, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clarence E. Williams, Petitioner, V. United States of America et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. JUL 2 3 2012 Clerk. U.S. District & Bankruptcy Courts for the Oistnct of Columbia 12 1206 MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner, proceeding prose, has submitted an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, along with 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. Petitioner is a North Carolina state prisoner incarcerated at the Johnston Correctional Institution in Smithfield, North Carolina. He is challenging his state conviction following his plea of guilty. Federal court review of state convictions is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 only after the exhaustion of available 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 within which the State court was held which convicted and sentenced [petitioner] and each of such district courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the application." 28 U.S.C. § 224l(d). To the extent that petitioner is seeking review of the denial of habeas relief by the United States District Court for the Eastern District ofNorth Carolina, see Pet.~~ 1, ll(c), this Court lacks jurisdiction to provide such relief. 3 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332 (general jurisdictional provisions); Fleming v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), cert. denied513 U.S. 1150 (1995). Because petitioner has no recourse in the District of Columbia, this action will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. ,,"'- Date: July _ _ , 2012 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.
