FILED
JUN - ~ 2009
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District and
Bankruptcy Courts
JOHN MEHALIC, ill,
Petitioner,
v. Civil Action No. 09 1038
JOHN OWENS,
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. The Court will grant the application,
and will dismiss the petition.
Petitioner attacks his criminal conviction and the sentence imposed by the Superior Court
of the District of Columbia in November 1998 on several grounds, including ineffective
assistance of defense counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. Challenges of this nature must be
brought in a habeas action in the Superior Court under D.C. Code § 23-110(g), which 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-ll0(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
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). A prisoners lack of success in
his attempt to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence by means of a motion under D.C.
Code § 23-11O(g) does not render this remedy inadequate or ineffective. See Wilson v. Office of
the Chairperson, 892 F. Supp. 277, 280 (D.D.C. 1995).
Petitioner provides no basis for finding his local remedy inadequate, and the Court will
dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction. See Mehalic v. Owens, No. 08-1843,2008 WL
4723719, at *1 (D.D.C. Oct. 27, 2008), appeal dismissed, No. 08-5501 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 17,2009)
(order denying request for certificate of appealability and dismissing appeal). An Order
consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be issued separately on this date.
istrict Judge
-
DATE: ;r;d1Jtr tpfj
2
Mehalic v. Owens
Combined Opinion