ANDERSON v. BROWN et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 5/22/2024. (znmw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
QUINCY RAHSAAN ANDERSON,
Petitioner,
v.
KIM BROWN, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-01067 (UNA)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner appearing pro se is a state inmate who is awaiting sentence, and he is currently
designated to Franklin County Corrections Center, located in Columbus, Ohio. He has filed a
petition for writ of habeas corpus (“Pet.”), ECF No. 1, seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
and an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. He challenges his
conviction, entered on January 11, 2024, by the Franklin County Common Pleas Court, alleging
that he suffered several constitutional violations, including infringement of his right to speedy trial
and acts of prosecutorial misconduct. See Pet. at 2–3, 6, 8–9, 11. As a result, he demands that the
court vacate his conviction. See id. at 11.
Federal review of state convictions is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 only after the
exhaustion of available state remedies. 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 [the petitioner] and each of such district courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to
entertain the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

First, petitioner has, admittedly, not yet exhausted his state remedies. See Pet. at 3, 9.
Indeed, he asserts that his direct appeal before the Ohio Court of Appeals is still pending. See id.
Second, even if petitioner had exhausted his state remedies, he was convicted and sentenced in
Ohio, and is also incarcerated there. See id. at 2. Consequently, after petitioner has exhausted his
state remedies, he must file his § 2254 petition in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio.
For these reasons, petitioner has no recourse in this District, and his petition will be
dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). A separate order accompanies this
memorandum opinion.
Date: May 22, 2024

__________/s/_____________
AMIT P. MEHTA
United States District Judge