FILED
'UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DEC f 7 2009
Clerk, U.S. District and
Bankruptcy Courts
John D. Blunt, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. d9 ~;j80
)
Paul H. Schultz, )
)
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.
Petitioner is a prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution in Fairton, New Jersey,
serving 40 years to life for two counts of murder and related offenses. He challenges his
convictions following a jury trial in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. See Pet. at 3.
Petitioner claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial and that he is
innocent.
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); Byrdv. 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),
3
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
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 Superior Court and the D.C. Court of Appeals have entertained
petitioner's collateral challenges to his conviction. See Pet. at 4,6-7. Petitioner's lack of success
in those courts, however, does not render his local remedy inadequate or ineffective, see Garris
v. Lindsay, 794 F.2d at 727; Charles v. Chandler, 180 F.3d 753, 756-58 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing
cases), and petitioner has provided no other basis for finding the local remedy inadequate. This
Court therefore lacks authority to entertain the petition.
accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: Decembe/1-, 2009
2