MCELROY v. ROPOS
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Christopher R. Cooper on 01/31/2023. (zsl)
Case 1:22-cv-03868-UNA Document 3 Filed 01/31/23 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BRIAN KEITH McELROY,
Plaintiff,
v.
ZACHARY ROPOS,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 22-3868 (UNA)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis
(ECF No. 2) and pro se complaint (ECF No. 1). The Court will grant the application and dismiss
the complaint.1
Plaintiff finds himself at the Brevard County, Florida jail awaiting extradition to Ohio.
He alleges that Patrol Sergeant Ropos testified falsely at plaintiff’s preliminary hearing in an
Ohio court. Among the attachments to the complaint is an excerpt from a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus (ECF No. 1-1 at 4) filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio. See McElroy v. City of Painesville, No. 1:22-cv-2101 (N.D. Ohio filed Nov. 21,
1
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), a prisoner plaintiff must submit a certified copy of his trust fund
account statement (or institutional equivalent), including the supporting ledger sheets, for the sixmonth period immediately preceding the filing of this complaint, obtained from the appropriate
official of each prison at which plaintiff is or was confined. The Court excuses this plaintiff’s
failure to file a trust fund account statement. Based on information plaintiff supplied in a
separate case, see McElroy v. Lake County Sheriff’s Office, No. 1:22-cv-3261 (D.D.C. filed Oct.
24, 2022) (ECF Nos. 3, 8, 12), it appears plaintiff had not been in custody for a full six months
prior to initiating this civil action on December 19, 2022. Furthermore, the Court accepts
plaintiff’s representation that his trust account has a negative balance and therefore he is unable
to pay the filing fee.
Case 1:22-cv-03868-UNA Document 3 Filed 01/31/23 Page 2 of 2
2022). The complaint itself does not demand relief, and the Court presumes that plaintiff is
attempting to file a habeas petition in this district also.
The proper respondent in a habeas corpus action ordinarily is the petitioner’s warden,
Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004); Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1039
(D.C. Cir. 1998) (citing Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 810 (D.C. Cir. 1988)), and
this “district court may not entertain a habeas petition involving present physical custody unless
the respondent custodian is within its territorial jurisdiction,” Stokes v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 374
F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Plaintiff neither names the proper respondent nor establishes
that the respondent is located in the District of Columbia. Therefore, dismissal of the petition is
warranted because this Court lacks jurisdiction over it. Furthermore, no district court need
entertain a duplicate petition. “Considerations of comity and orderly administration of justice
dictate that two courts of equal authority should not hear the same case simultaneously.”
Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth. v. Ragonese, 617 F.2d 828, 830 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (citation
omitted).
An Order is issued separately.
DATE: January 31, 2023
/s/
CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?