1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN RE DAMON DONELSON, Petitioner. Civil Action No. 17-354 (JEB)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se Plaintiff Damon Donelson seeks a writ of habeas corpus in what he styles as a second or successive Petition to challenge the legality of his conviction and sentence by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. See ECF No. 1 (App lication) at 5 (asking Court to “correct his sentence”). In part icular, he alleges that his se ntence violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution because the Superior Court improperl y failed to merge duplicative convictions for essentially the same offense. Id. at 1-4. He also appears to claim that, as a result of this error, the jury may have been confused about the suffic iency of the evidence required for

his conviction. Id. at 4. If D onelson is entitled to any reli ef, he must seek it in the Superior

Court unless he can show that such a remedy would be ineffectiv e or inadequate. As he cannot make that showing, this Cour t must dismiss the case. A prisoner in custody pursuant t o the judgment of a court is en titled to federal habeas

relief if he can establish that his “custody [is] in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties

of the United States. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3 ). Ordinarily, a prisoner in state custody may do so by bringing a challenge to the l egality of his conviction and s entence in a federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Rahim v. U.S. P arole Comm’n, 77 F. Supp. 3d 140 , 145 (D.D.C. 2015). District of Columbia prisoners, pursuan t to D.C. Code § 23-110(a), inste ad “may seek to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence on [ the grounds that] the sentence is unconstitutional or illegal . . .2 [or] subject to collateral atta ck” by filing in the District of Columbia Superior Court. Alston v. United States, 590 A.2d 511, 513 (D.C. 1991); see Rahim, 77 F. Supp. 3d at 145-46. This provision affords “a remedy analogous to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for p risoners sentenced in D.C. Superior Court who wish[] to cha llenge their conviction or sent ence.” Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1042 (D.C. Cir. 1998). This remedy does more than merely provide an alternative forum for the pursuit of such a claim. It also “vest[s] the Supe rior Court with exclusive juri sdiction over most collateral challenges by prisoners sentenced in that court.” Williams v. Martinez, 586 F.3d 995, 1000 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (emphasis added). A federal court thus cannot entertain a habeas petition to vacate such a sentence “if it appears that the applicant has fa iled to make a motion for relief under [§ 23-110(a)] . . . unless it a lso appears that the remed y by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legali ty of his detention.” D.C. Code § 23-110(g). In other words, “a District of Columbia prisoner s eeking to collaterally attack hi s sentence must do so by motion in the sentencing court – the Supe rior Court – pursuant to § 23-11 0.” Byrd v. Henderson, 119 F.3d 34, 35 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (emphasis added); see also Williams, 586 F.3d at 998 (“Section 23- 110(g)’s plain language makes cl ear that it only divests federa l courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas petitions by prisoners who c ould have raised viable clai ms pursuant to [§] 23-110(a).”). The only way that Donelson coul d bring this Petition in this Co urt is by showing that § 23-110(a) provides an ineffectiv e or inadequate remedy to tes t the legality of his detention. Garris v. Lindsay, 794 F.2d 722, 726 (D.C. Cir. 1986). He has not attempted to make such a showing, nor could he. Prisoners i n his position have long suc cessfully brought such doublejeopardy claims under § 23-110(a) i n the Superior Court. See, e.g., United States v. Robinson, 388 A.2d 469 (D.C. 1978) (granting such challenge).3 Donelson thus has no current reco urse in a federal district co urt. See Garris, 794 F.2d at 727; Ankhamen v. United Sta tes, No. 11-1747, 2012 WL 689109, at *1 (D.D.C. Mar. 1, 2012). The Court, accordingly, will dism iss his Petition for a writ of habeas corpus. An Order so stating shall issue this day.

/s/ James E. Boasber g JAMES E. BOASBERG United States District Judge Date: April 6, 2017