Court Opinion

ID: 9387599
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-18 16:02:13.821526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:14.722965
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JERMAINE JOSEPH DUNLAP,                                        )
                                                               )
                               Petitioner,                     )
                                                               )
       v.                                                      )       Civ. No. 23-1011 (UNA)
                                                               )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                                   )
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,                                  )
                                                               )
                               Respondent.                     )

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
       This matter is before the Court on yet another Petition for a Writ Habeas Corpus (ECF

No. 1) from Jermaine Joseph Dunlap, a California state prisoner, and his application to proceed

in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). Notwithstanding the unintelligible allegations of the petition,

having filed a habeas petition, the Court presumes that petitioner challenges – again – his

conviction and sentence and demands his release from custody.

       As petitioner well knows, he has no recourse in this district. See, e.g., Dunlap v. U.S.

District Court in the District of Columbia, No. 23-cv-0461 (D.D.C. Mar. 6, 2023) (dismissing

petition without prejudice for want of jurisdiction); Dunlap v. Dep’t Rev. Bd., No. 14-cv-0145,

2014 WL 414156, at *1 (D.D.C. Jan. 30, 2014) (concluding that “plaintiff has no recourse in

habeas in the District of Columbia”).

       Habeas review of a state court conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is available only after

exhaustion of state remedies, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1), and only “in the district court for the

district wherein such person is in custody or in the district court for the district within which the

State court was held which convicted and sentenced [petitioner] and each of such district courts

                                                  1
shall have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the application,” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). This

petitioner was convicted and sentenced in California, and he has no recourse in the District of

Columbia.

       The Court will grant petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss his

petition without prejudice for want of jurisdiction. A separate Order accompanies this

Memorandum Opinion.

                                                            /s/
                                                            TANYA S. CHUTKAN
DATE: April 17, 2023                                        United States District Judge

                                                2