Saleh v. Braxton, Civ. A. No. 92-0517 (GHR).
Citation | 788 F. Supp. 1232 |
Decision Date | 04 March 1992 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 92-0517 (GHR). |
Parties | Janad F. SALEH, Petitioner, v. Bernard L. BRAXTON, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Janad F. Saleh, pro se.
Bernard L. Braxton, pro se.
Petitioner, who is presently incarcerated at the District of Columbia correctional facility at Lorton, Virginia, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The grounds alleged are failure to provide a timely or adequate revocation hearing, and ineffective assistance of counsel at a preliminary parole hearing. Petitioner was incarcerated pursuant to a sentence imposed by the Superior Court for the District of Columbia upon a guilty plea. Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petition, the petition will be dismissed.
Section 2254 provides, in pertinent part:
Although the District of Columbia is not a state, Congress has provided prisoners incarcerated pursuant to a Superior Court sentence with a local remedy in District of Columbia Code § 23-110. This section provides that prisoners may collaterally challenge the legality of their sentence directly in the Superior Court and, if they are unsuccessful there, by appeal to the D.C. Court of Appeals. See Garris v. Lindsay, 794 F.2d 722, 725 (D.C.Cir.1986). The court of appeals has further declared that "a District of Columbia prisoner has no recourse to a federal judicial forum unless the local remedy is `inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.'" Id. Section 23-110 has been found to be adequate and effective because it is coextensive with habeas corpus. See id.; Swain v. Pressley, 430 U.S. 372, 377-82, 97 S.Ct. 1224, 1227-30, 51 L.Ed.2d 411 (1977). Petitioner's recourse, therefore, lies in the first instance in the D.C. Superior...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Williams v. Apker
...“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, 1232 (D.D.C.1992), except where a petitioner alleges ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and has unsuccessfully moved to recall the mandate ......
-
Perkins v. Henderson, Civ. A. No. 95-182(CRR).
...a sentence imposed by the District of Columbia Superior Court. See Swain, 430 U.S. at 377-78, 97 S.Ct. at 1227-28; Saleh v. Braxton, 788 F.Supp. 1232 (D.D.C.1992). D.C.Code § 23-110 is the functional equivalent of 28 U.S.C. § 2255.3 Section 2255, which authorizes the filing of a motion to v......
-
McCoy v. Thomas
...and this local remedy "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) (citing Garris , 794 F.2d at 725 ; Swain v. Pressley , 430 U.S. 372, 377–82, 97 S.Ct. 1224, 51 L.Ed.2d 411 (1977) ). A motion un......
-
Wilson v. Office of Chairperson, DC Bd. of Parole, Civ. A. No. 95-953 (CRR).
...of Columbia Superior Court. See Swain v. Pressley, 430 U.S. 372, 377-78, 97 S.Ct. 1224, 1227-28, 51 L.Ed.2d 411 (1977); Saleh v. Braxton, 788 F.Supp. 1232 (D.D.C.1992). D.C.Code § 23-110 is the functional equivalent of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Section 2255, which authorizes the filing of a motion ......