FILED
JAN 1.'7 2009
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District and
Bankruptcy Courts
ERIC RODNEY HILL,
Petitioner,
O~
v. Civil Action No.
0142
WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN, USP,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the Court on petitioner's application to proceed in forma
pauperis and pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus.!
Once again, petitioner challenges his conviction in and the sentence imposed by the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia. And again, the Court concludes that challenges of
this nature must be brought by motion in the Superior Court under D.C. Code § 23-110. In
relevant part D.C. Code § 23-110 provides:
[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 § 23-11O(g). "Section 23-110 has been found to be adequate and effective because it
is coextensive with habeas corpus." Saleh v. Braxton, 788 F. Supp. 1232 (D.D.C. 1992). It is
settled that "a District of Columbia prisoner has no recourse to a federal judicial forum unless
This action was transferred here from the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.
1
the local remedy is 'inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention'" Byrd v.
Henderson, 119 F.3d 34, 36-37 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (internal footnote omitted); Garris v. Lindsay,
794 F.2d 722, 726 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 993 (1986).
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the petition. An Order consistent with this
Memorandum Opinion will be issued separately on this date.
2