United States District Court, District of Columbia
February 18, 2014
Linda Nickerson, Petitioner,
United States of America et al., Respondents.
The petitioner, proceeding pro se, has submitted a form captioned "Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, " along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
The petitioner is a North Carolina state prisoner incarcerated at the Maury Correctional Institution in Maury, North Carolina. The petitioner has handwritten "Complaint" on the first page of the petition but states that she is challenging a conviction entered by the "U.S. District Court Eastern District N.C. " on February 26, 2007. Pet. ¶¶ 1, 2. As her sole ground for relief, the petitioner states: "District Judge granted respondent's request for summary judgment, " id. ¶12, and the supporting facts fault the judge for having "failed to cite curable defects, plaguing colorable pro-se innocence claim and allow fair opportunity to amend, and order dismissal, " id.
The scant information contained in the petition is confusing but suggests that the petitioner is seeking review of a state conviction. Federal court review of state convictions is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after the exhaustion of available state remedies. See 28 U.S.C. §2254(b)(l). 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 [the petitioner] and each of such district courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the application." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Since nothing in the petition links the petitioner's custody to the District of Columbia, this Court lacks authority to entertain the petitioner's habeas application. In addition, to the extent that the petitioner is seeking review of the denial of relief by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, see Pet. ¶ 12, jurisdiction is wanting because this Court is not a reviewing court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332 (general jurisdictional provisions); Fleming v. United States, 847 F.Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), cert, denied 5\3 U.S. 1150 (1995) (citing District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415, 416 (1923)). Because the petitioner has no recourse in the District of Columbia, this action will be dismissed.