The opinion of the court was delivered by: CHARLES R. RICHEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court in the above-entitled cause is the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the Petitioner's Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus for lack of jurisdiction and on its merits. Upon careful consideration of the parties' pleadings, the entire record herein, and the applicable law with respect thereto, the Court will GRANT the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss upon jurisdictional grounds.
Petitioner, convicted in 1977 in the District of Columbia Superior Court of rape and two counts of burglary, challenges the lawfulness of his continued custody at the Lorton Correctional Complex. Plaintiff alleges that the District of Columbia Board of Parole denied him due process and equal protection of the laws in basing its decision to deny him parole on allegedly false information and by failing to order a reconsideration hearing under 28 D.C.M.R. § 104.11. Plaintiff further maintains that the application of 1987 revisions to the parole guidelines in the Board's decision violated the bar against ex post facto laws.
The unique status of the District of Columbia precludes nearly all federal post-conviction review of District of Columbia Superior Court criminal convictions. It also prevents federal courts from entertaining habeas corpus petitions filed by prisoners in the custody of District of Columbia officials.
Since prisoners sentenced in the Superior Court and incarcerated in District of Columbia facilities are not considered "state" offenders or prisoners in state custody, they may not seek federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Swain v. Pressley, 430 U.S. 372, 377, 51 L. Ed. 2d 411, 97 S. Ct. 1224 (1977); Palmore v. United States, 411 U.S. 389, 395, 36 L. Ed. 2d 342, 93 S. Ct. 1670 (1973); Garris v. Lindsay, 254 U.S. App. D.C. 13, 794 F.2d 722, 726 nn.23, 24 (D.C. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 993, 93 L. Ed. 2d 595, 107 S. Ct. 595 (1986).
And because they are not "federal" offenders, prisoners sentenced in the Superior Court may not file motions to vacate, set aside, or correct their sentences under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Swain, 430 U.S. at 377; Gary v. United States, 499 A.2d 815, 857 (D.C. App. 1985) (Mack, J., concurring & dissenting).
The federal habeas corpus and post-conviction review that is available to District of Columbia prisoners is, in turn, limited by D.C. Code §§ 16-1901 and 23-110, which were enacted as part of the District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970.
The former precludes the Court from entertaining the instant petition.
A. The two forms of postconviction relief available to prisoners sentenced in the Superior Court and in the custody of District of Columbia officials mirror those available to federal prisoners under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255 and 2241.
1. D.C. Code. § 23-110 and 28 U.S.C. § 2255.