MCELROY v. ROPOS, No. 1:2022cv03868 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Christopher R. Cooper on 01/31/2023. (zsl)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
MCELROY v. ROPOS Doc. 3 Case 1:22-cv-03868-UNA Document 3 Filed 01/31/23 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BRIAN KEITH McELROY, Plaintiff, v. ZACHARY ROPOS, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 22-3868 (UNA) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) and pro se complaint (ECF No. 1). The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint.1 Plaintiff finds himself at the Brevard County, Florida jail awaiting extradition to Ohio. He alleges that Patrol Sergeant Ropos testified falsely at plaintiff’s preliminary hearing in an Ohio court. Among the attachments to the complaint is an excerpt from a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1-1 at 4) filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. See McElroy v. City of Painesville, No. 1:22-cv-2101 (N.D. Ohio filed Nov. 21, Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), a prisoner plaintiff must submit a certified copy of his trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent), including the supporting ledger sheets, for the sixmonth period immediately preceding the filing of this complaint, obtained from the appropriate official of each prison at which plaintiff is or was confined. The Court excuses this plaintiff’s failure to file a trust fund account statement. Based on information plaintiff supplied in a separate case, see McElroy v. Lake County Sheriff’s Office, No. 1:22-cv-3261 (D.D.C. filed Oct. 24, 2022) (ECF Nos. 3, 8, 12), it appears plaintiff had not been in custody for a full six months prior to initiating this civil action on December 19, 2022. Furthermore, the Court accepts plaintiff’s representation that his trust account has a negative balance and therefore he is unable to pay the filing fee. 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:22-cv-03868-UNA Document 3 Filed 01/31/23 Page 2 of 2 2022). The complaint itself does not demand relief, and the Court presumes that plaintiff is attempting to file a habeas petition in this district also. The proper respondent in a habeas corpus action ordinarily is the petitioner’s warden, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004); Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1039 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (citing Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 810 (D.C. Cir. 1988)), and this “district court may not entertain a habeas petition involving present physical custody unless the respondent custodian is within its territorial jurisdiction,” Stokes v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Plaintiff neither names the proper respondent nor establishes that the respondent is located in the District of Columbia. Therefore, dismissal of the petition is warranted because this Court lacks jurisdiction over it. Furthermore, no district court need entertain a duplicate petition. “Considerations of comity and orderly administration of justice dictate that two courts of equal authority should not hear the same case simultaneously.” Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth. v. Ragonese, 617 F.2d 828, 830 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (citation omitted). An Order is issued separately. DATE: January 31, 2023 /s/ CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER United States District Judge
]]>
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.
