Court Opinion

ID: 9893574
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-27 19:01:00.961739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:33.841729
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                                                      )
GRADY RENARD WILLIAMS, JR.,                           )
                                                      )
                       Petitioner,                    )
                                                      )
               v.                                     )    Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-02500 (UNA)
                                                      )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                             )
                                                      )
                       Respondent.                    )
                                                      )

                                     MEMORANDUM OPINION

       This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”), ECF No. 2, and his pro se petition for a writ of mandamus, ECF No. 1, brought pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1361. For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant the IFP application and

dismiss this matter without prejudice.

       Petitioner, who is currently in the custody of the Georgia Department of Corrections, has

sued the United States for mandamus relief. More specifically, he seeks an order directing

President Biden to force the release of various proceeds arising from petitioner’s “dirt-for-debt”

bankruptcy plan, purportedly executed in Georgia, which he claims includes the release of “bond

notes and securities” associated with his state criminal convictions.

       A writ of mandamus “compel[s] an officer or employee of the United States or any agency

thereof to perform a duty owed to the [petitioner].” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. “[M]andamus is ‘drastic’;

it is available only in ‘extraordinary situations.’” In re Cheney, 406 F.3d 723, 729 (D.C. Cir. 2005)

(citations omitted). Only if (1) the petitioner has a clear right to relief; (2) the respondent has a
clear duty to act; and (3) there is no other adequate remedy available to the petitioner, Thomas v.

Holder, 750 F.3d 899, 903 (D.C. Cir. 2014), can mandamus relief be granted.

       Petitioner passingly mentions the first two elements, but instead of elaborating, he broadly

cites to a House Joint Resolution and the “UCC,” the latter of which the Court gleans to perhaps

be a misnomer actually intended to reference the United States Bankruptcy Code. Regardless,

these citations are unexplained and are irrelevant to establishing a right to mandamus relief. Put

simply, petitioner fails to clear the high bar to state a claim. Indeed, it is unclear what President

Biden has to do with his bankruptcy proceedings or his state conviction, if anything. Moreover,

to the extent that petitioner seeks to initiate or challenge the outcome of bankruptcy proceedings,

he may attempt to do so directly under the applicable federal bankruptcy statutes, but not by and

through a writ of mandamus.

       Finally, as far as it can be understood, petitioner asks alternatively that his convictions,

entered by “the state of Georgia doing business as the United States[,] . . . be declared unlawful[,]”

and that he be released from custody. However, petitioner has an available remedy in habeas

corpus. See Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (per curiam) (“Challenges to the

validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus

[.]”) (citation omitted); Morales v. Jones, 417 Fed. App’x 746, 749 (10th Cir. 2011) (“Absence of

jurisdiction in the convicting court is indeed a basis for federal habeas corpus relief cognizable

under the due process clause.”). And, where “habeas is an available and potentially efficacious

remedy, it is clear beyond reasonable dispute that mandamus will not appropriately lie.” Chatman–

Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 806 (D.C. Cir. 1988).

       Consequently, petitioner’s recourse to challenge his state conviction is available under 28

U.S.C. § 2254, and only after the exhaustion of available state remedies. See 28 U.S.C. §
2254(b)(1). Thereafter, “an application for a writ of habeas corpus [ ] made by a person in custody

under the judgment and sentence of a State court . . . may be filed 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

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

when petitioner has exhausted his state remedies, he must seek relief in the United States District

Court for the District of Georgia, not in this District.

        For all of these reasons, the Court dismisses this matter without prejudice. A separate order

accompanies this memorandum opinion.

Date: October 26, 2023                          __________/s/_________________
                                                        JIA M. COBB
                                                   United States District Judge