Opinion

Dunlap v. Department Review Board Appeal Branch

Court
District Court, District of Columbia
Filed
Jan 30, 2014
Status
Published
On the bench
Judge Reggie B. Walton
Nature of suit
Civil
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAN 3 n 2014

FOR TI-IE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA C|erk, U.S. Dlstr|ct & Bankruptcy

Courts for the Dlstr|ct of Co|umb|a

Jermaine J. Dunlap, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. "'

)

Department Review Board et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The plaintiff, a California state prisoner, has submitted a hodgepodge of documents

containing various captions and incoherent statements. Similar to the plaintiff s prior actions,

this action is difficult to comprehend. See Dunlap v. Board of Prz'son Hearings, No. l:08-cv-

l770, 2009 WL 1759651, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jun. 22, 2009) (dismissing amended habeas petition

presenting "the same incomprehensible allegations [stated] on three separate [prior] occasions").

The instant documents suggest that the plaintiff is challenging his California state

conviction and/or sentence. Federal court review of state convictions is available under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 only 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 [petitioner] and each of such district courts shall

have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the application." 28 U.S.C. § 224l(d). The district

court in California has afforded the plaintiff "three opportunities to state a claim for federal

habeas relief," Dunlap, 2009 WL 1759651, at *3, and the plaintiff has no recourse in habeas in

1

the District of Columbia. In addition, the documents reveal no potentially cognizable civil claim.

Therefore, this case will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § l9l5A (requiring the Court to screen and dismiss a prisoner’s

complaint upon a determination that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted).

A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Uni c State_s District Judge

Date: January 'Z ,20l4

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.