D.C. Code § 23-110

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of trial-error claims unless the local motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective; unsuccessful motions alone do not make it so.

Payne v. Stansberry · filed 2011-08-05(g)

Warden Stansberry argues correctly that Mr. Payne’s claims based on errors that occurred at his criminal trial are not subject to review by this Court because Mr. Payne has not shown that his local remedy was inadequate to address those errors. The fact that Mr. Payne was unsuccessful in his multiple attempts for relief under § 23-110 does not alone render the local remedy inadequate or ineffective.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of a D.C. prisoner's conviction unless the local motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective; denial of relief alone does not meet that exception.

Pinkney v. United States of America · filed 2011-08-09(g)

His allegations of error by the Superior Court properly were raised in and decided by the Court of Appeals, and this Court is without jurisdiction to review or overturn these rulings. In short, Pinkney cannot avail himself of this federal forum merely because his prior attempts to challenge his conviction and sentence in the District of Columbia courts have not been successful.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review when a motion in Superior Court can test the legality of a D.C. Code offender’s detention.

Reed v. Berkebile · filed 2011-08-30(g)

Petitioner challenge to his conviction and sentence may be brought by motion under D.C. Code § 23-110 in the Superior Court.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of trial-counsel claims when the prisoner had an opportunity to raise them in Superior Court; denial of relief does not make that remedy inadequate or ineffective.

Adams v. Middlebrooks · filed 2011-09-09(g)

His lone justification for doing so — that his prior attempts to challenge his conviction and sentence in D.C. court on this basis have been unsuccessful — is insufficient.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas relief when a D.C. Code offender has not sought Superior Court relief and has not shown that the local remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Brown v. United States · filed 2011-11-07(g)

Petitioner has not sought relief in the Superior Court and he makes no argument that the relief available to him under D.C. Code § 23-110 is inadequate or ineffective. Accordingly, his petition will be denied.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review unless the Superior Court motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of detention.

McMillan v. United States · filed 2011-11-16(g)

The petitioner has not shown that his local remedy is inadequate to address his claims. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the instant petition.

Section 23-110 bars federal habeas review of trial error and trial counsel claims when a D.C. prisoner has not shown that its remedy is inadequate.

Coleman v. Ives · filed 2012-01-30(g)

However, to the extent that he is seeking review of claims arising from errors that occurred during his trial and trial counsel’s performance, those claims are indeed foreclosed from federal court review by D.C. Code § 23-110 because petitioner has not demonstrated the inadequacy of that available remedy.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of a Superior Court sentence unless the local motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective; denial of relief alone does not make it so.

Chew v. Lves · filed 2012-05-07(g)

And “[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is authorized to apply for relief by motion [under § 23-110] shall not be entertained by . . . any Federal . . . court if it appears . . . that the Superior Court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” D.C. Code § 23-110(g). ... The mere denial of relief by the local courts does not render the local remedy inadequate or ineffective.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review unless the prisoner shows that the local motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of detention.

Wright v. Stansberry · filed 2011-01-04(g)

The petitioner has not indicated, however, that he raised this error in the § 23-110 motion he filed in March 2007, nor has he explained why a remedy under § 23-110 would be inadequate or ineffective. ... Accordingly, the petitioner has not established the court’s jurisdiction over this claim.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of grounds a D.C. prisoner can pursue through a Superior Court motion.

Williams v. Apker · filed 2011-03-28(g)

The court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction over those grounds for habeas relief that the petitioner can pursue under § 23-110.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review when a prisoner has not shown that the local motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Millan v. United States · filed 2011-09-08(g)

The petitioner has not shown that his local remedy is inadequate to address his claims. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the instant petition.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas relief for a D.C. prisoner who can challenge a Superior Court conviction through a local motion unless that remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Graham v. Bledsoe · filed 2012-01-26(g)

Petitioner has not demonstrated the inadequacy of the available local remedy to address trial counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness. ... Therefore, the second petition provides no basis for issuing a writ of habeas corpus.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of a Superior Court sentence when the prisoner’s claims fall within section 23-110 and its remedy is adequate and effective.

Ankhamen v. United States · filed 2012-03-02(g)

He has not asserted – and the Court does not find -- that those claims are outside the scope of D.C. Code § 23-110, which states: ... For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over the instant petition.

A procedural bar to filing a § 23-110 motion does not make the local remedy inadequate or ineffective for purposes of federal habeas review.

Chase v. Rathman · filed 2011-02-16(g)

That petitioner may be barred procedurally from filing a motion under D.C.Code § 23-110 does not render this local remedy inadequate or ineffective.

Prior failure to obtain relief under § 23-110 does not make the local remedy inadequate or ineffective for purposes of federal habeas review.

Hunter v. Bledsoe · filed 2011-03-07(g)

Petitioner’s lack of success in his previous attempts to collaterally attack his conviction or sentence does not render his local remedy inadequate or ineffective See Wz`lson v. Ojz`ce of the Chaz'rperson, 892 F. Supp. 277, 280 (D.D.C. l995).

Section 23-110(g) does not permit federal habeas review merely because a prisoner was unsuccessful in prior motions under § 23-110.

Hudson v. Apker · filed 2011-04-18(g)

His lack of success in the District of Columbia courts -- which appears to be his only reason for petitioning the federal court -- does not render the local remedy under § 23-110 inadequate or ineffective.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of claims that could have been raised under § 23-110(a), and losing in the D.C. courts does not make that local remedy inadequate or ineffective.

Graham v. Bledsoe · filed 2011-04-18(g)

The fact that Petitioner did not prevail on such claims in the D.C. courts does not render the local remedy inadequate or ineffective.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review unless the local motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective; an unsuccessful motion alone does not make the remedy inadequate or ineffective.

Blount v. Wilson · filed 2011-04-19(g)

The petitioner’s lack of success in the District of Columbia courts does not render his local remedy inadequate or ineffective.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review unless the local motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective; an unsuccessful local challenge does not make the remedy inadequate or ineffective.

Finch v. Cauley · filed 2011-05-24(g)

As this Court has previously determined, petitioner’s lack of success in the local courts does not render his local remedy inadequate or ineffective and petitioner has provided no other basis for finding the local remedy inadequate.

An unsuccessful motion under § 23-110 does not by itself make the local remedy inadequate or ineffective for federal habeas review.

Jones v. Wainwright · filed 2011-08-08(g)

Petitioner unsuccessfully sought relief on direct appeal and under § 23- 110, see Pet. at 3, but his lack of success in the District of Columbia courts does not alone render the local remedy inadequate or ineffective.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review after the Superior Court has rejected a collateral attack unless the local motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of detention.

Peoples v. Schultz · filed 2011-08-29(g)

As Petitioner has already twice requested review from the Superior Court under § 23-110, this Court may only entertain this latest habeas petition if it finds that the previous use of the local collateral-attack remedy was “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” Yet Petitioner does not provide any support for his conclusory claim that the District’s § 23-110 process was inadequate or ineffective.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review when a D.C. Superior Court prisoner has an adequate local remedy; denial of relief alone does not make that remedy inadequate.

Earle v. United States · filed 2011-09-09(g)

Mr. Earle provides no reason to find his Section 23-110 remedy inadequate other than the denial of his petition by Judge Richter.

Section 23-110 requires a prisoner challenging a D.C. Superior Court conviction in federal court to show that relief in D.C. courts is inadequate or ineffective.

Earle v. United States · filed 2011-10-13

As to petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, the petitioner simply made no showing that relief available in the courts of the District of Columbia was inadequate or ineffective, as required under D.C. Code § 23-110.

Section 23-110(g) permits federal habeas review of a D.C. Superior Court sentence only when the § 23-110 motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective; a gateway actual-innocence claim does not itself bypass that limit.

Ibrahim v. United States · filed 2011-11-29(g)

But § 23-110(g) is not a procedural bar to otherwise available federal habeas claims; it is Congress’s deliberate channeling of constitutional collateral attacks on Superior Court sentences to courts within the District’s judicial system (subject to Supreme Court review), with federal habeas available only as a safety valve.

Section 23-110(g) permits federal habeas review only when the local remedy is inadequate or ineffective; missing a deadline to use an available local remedy does not make it inadequate or ineffective.

Pleasant v. Wilson · filed 2011-12-23(g)

In this case, petitioner had an available local remedy, recall of the Court of Appeals’ mandate, yet he failed to file his motion timely. ... Petitioner cannot show that his local remedy is inadequate or ineffective, and the petition must be denied for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 23-110(g) limits federal court review unless the Superior Court remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Kinard v. United States of America · filed 2012-02-02(g)

Nothing in the complaint suggests that the plaintiffs available remedy under D.C. Code § 23-110 is inadequate or ineffective.

Section 23-110(g) does not permit federal habeas review merely because a prisoner’s challenges in the District of Columbia courts were unsuccessful.

Hatch v. Jett · filed 2012-03-21(g)

In short, petitioner cannot avail himself of this federal forum merely because his prior attempts to challenge his conviction in the District of Columbia courts have not been successful.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of a Superior Court sentence unless the local remedy is inadequate or ineffective; unsuccessful local challenges alone do not make it so.

Spencer v. United States · filed 2011-08-30(g)

Because the Petition reveals no basis for finding the local remedy under § 23-110 to be inadequate or ineffective, this Court lacks authority to entertain the habeas Petition. In short, Mr. Spencer cannot avail himself of this federal forum merely because his prior attempts to challenge his conviction and sentence in the District of Columbia courts have not been successful.

Section 23-110 does not provide a remedy for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, so its remedy is inadequate for that claim.

Hazel v. Lves · filed 2011-10-20(g)

Section 23-110 is only inadequate insofar it does not provide a means for a petitioner to claim ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

Section 23-110(g) bars a federal court from hearing a Superior Court prisoner's challenge to detention unless the local motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Whitlow v. United States · filed 2011-11-01(g)

No allegations in the complaint show that plaintiff previously has attacked his conviction or sentence in the Superior Court by motion under D.C. Code § 23-110, or that this remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal court review of a Superior Court prisoner's challenge to a conviction or sentence unless the motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Muhammad-El v. United States · filed 2011-11-01(g)

Such a motion must be filed in the Superior Court, see D.C. Code § 23-110(a), and "shall not be entertained ... by any Federal ... court ifit appears that the [prisoner] has failed to make a motion for relief under this section or that the Superior Court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention." D.C. Code § 23-110(g). No allegations in the complaint show that plaintiff previously has attacked his conviction or sentence in the Superior Court by motion under D.C. Code § 23-110, or that this remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of a Superior Court conviction unless the prisoner shows that the local remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Stanley v. United States of America · filed 2013-04-10(g)

Because D.C. Code § 23-110(g) divests the federal courts of jurisdiction over Mr. Stanley’s petition, this case will be dismissed.

Section 23-110 bars federal habeas review of Superior Court trial errors and trial counsel claims unless the petitioner shows that the local remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Champion v. United States · filed 2013-05-31

To the extent that petitioner seeks review of claims arising from errors that occurred during criminal proceedings in the Superior Court and from trial counsel’s performance, this Court cannot entertain them because petitioner does not show that his remedy under D.C. Code § 23- 110 is inadequate or ineffective.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of a D.C. Superior Court conviction unless the local motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of detention.

Stoddard v. Director of the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia · filed 2014-08-19(g)

Although habeas relief in federal court is available to a District of Columbia Code offender who “is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), this court cannot entertain the petition “if it appears that the [petitioner] has failed to make a motion for relief under [D.C. Code § 23–110] or that the Superior Court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention,” D.C. Code § 23-110(g) ; see also Byrd v. Henderson, 119 F.3d 34, 36-37 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (finding that “a District of Columbia prisoner has no recourse to a federal judicial forum unless the local remedy is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention”); Garris v. Lindsay, 794 F.2d 722, 725, 726 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (stating that “a prisoner under a sentence imposed by the Superior Court of the District Court of the District of Columbia may collaterally challenge the constitutionality of his conviction by moving in that court for vacatur of his sentence”).

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of a collateral challenge to a Superior Court sentence when the prisoner has an adequate and effective remedy under § 23-110.

Rahim v. U.S. Parole Commission · filed 2015-01-07(g)

Because Rahim did not avail himself of this remedy, and because he has failed to show that it is inadequate to address his objections to his original sentencing, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of those claims.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review unless the prisoner shows that the Superior Court remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Thompson v. Shartle · filed 2012-06-19(g)

Because petitioner has not shown that his local remedy is inadequate to address his ineffective assistance claim, the Court will dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 23-110(g) bars a federal court from hearing a Superior Court prisoner's habeas petition unless the local motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of detention.

Hudson v. United States of America · filed 2012-09-20(g)

Since petitioner has not claimed, let alone shown, that his remedy under D.C. Code § 23- 110 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of the challenged sentence, this case will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 23-110 provides a remedy for claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and precludes federal district court jurisdiction over those claims.

Chew v. Holland · filed 2013-11-25

However, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the petitioner’s ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims. See Williams v. Martinez, 586 F.3d 995, 999 (D.C. Cir. 2009); see also Reyes v. Rios, 432 F. Supp. 2d 1, 3 (D.D.C. 2006) (“Section 23-110 provided the petitioner with a vehicle for challenging his conviction based on the alleged ineffectiveness of his trial counsel.”); Garmon v. United States, 684 A.2d 327, 329 n.3 (D.C. 1996) (“A motion to vacate sentence under section 23-110 is the standard means of raising a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.”).

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review unless the prisoner shows that the Superior Court motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Smith v. US Department of Justice · filed 2014-01-30(g)

Because the petitioner has not shown that his local remedy is inadequate to address his claims, the Court will dismiss this habeas action for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 23-110 covers claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and unsuccessful use of that remedy does not make it inadequate or ineffective for federal habeas review.

MacKall v. Wilson · filed 2014-03-29

A claim predicated on trial counsel’s ineffectiveness is cognizable under D.C. Code § 23- 110, see Coleman v. Ives, 841 F. Supp. 2d 333, 335 (D.D.C. 2012), and the instant petition presents no basis for finding the local remedy inadequate or ineffective.

Section 23-110 permits a prisoner to raise claims about evidence presented at trial and bars federal habeas review when those claims could have been raised under subsection (a).

Pinkney v. United States · filed 2014-05-22(a)

Such claims are reviewable under D.C. Code § 23-110, which “divests federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas petitions by prisoners who could have raised viable claims pursuant to § 23-110(a)."

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of a Superior Court sentence when the prisoner can seek relief under section 23-110 and has not shown that remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Hall v. Byrd · filed 2014-06-23(g)

Because petitioner may challenge the Superior Court’s sentence under § 23-110 and has not alleged, let alone shown, the ineffectiveness of that remedy, this Court lacks authorit y to entertain petitioner’s claim arising from his sentence.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of claims cognizable under § 23-110 unless the local remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Davis v. Winn, Jr. · filed 2014-06-25(g)

Because the petitioner has raised claims that are cognizable under § 23-110 and has not alleged, let alone shown, that the local remedy is ineffective or inadequate, the Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction over the instant petition.

Section 23-110(g) bars a federal court from hearing a habeas challenge to a Superior Court conviction when the claim is cognizable under § 23-110 and the local remedy has not been shown inadequate or ineffective.

Long v. United States Parole Commission · filed 2014-09-24(g)

Because the petitioner has presented a claim that is cognizable under § 23-110 and has not alleged, let alone shown, that the local remedy is ineffective or inadequate, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner’s ground for relief based on the Superior Court’s judgment of conviction.

Section 23-110(g) generally bars federal habeas review of claims that could have been raised under § 23-110(a); an adverse Superior Court ruling does not make that remedy inadequate or ineffective.

Saunder, Jr. v. United States · filed 2014-10-30(g)

The petitioner’s claims arise from alleged trial errors, and each could have been raised in the Superior Court by motion under § 23-110. ... The petitioner’s disagreement with the Superior Court’s rulings on prior motions, see, e.g., Waters v. Lockett, 956 F. Supp. 2d 109, 112 (D.D.C. 2013), and the “mere denial of relief” by the Superior Court, Chew v. Ives, No. 11-1210, 2012 WL 1597376, at *2 (D.D.C. May 7, 2012), do not establish that his local remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Section 23-110 limits federal habeas review of a D.C. Superior Court sentence unless the prisoner has pursued the local remedy and shows that remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Whitlow v. Brick Tripp · filed 2014-12-11(g)

Because Whitlow is in custody pursuant to a sentence imposed by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the district court may not entertain Whitlow’s § 2241 petition if he has failed to exhaust the remedy provided by D.C. Code § 23-110 (Supp. 2014) or has been denied § 23-110 relief by the Superior court, unless it appears that a § 23-110 motion would be inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of a collateral challenge to a D.C. Superior Court sentence unless the prisoner shows that a § 23-110 motion is inadequate or ineffective.

Squire v. Fulwood · filed 2014-12-18(g)

Because Squire did not avail himself of this remedy, and because he has failed to show it is inadequate to address his challenges, this Court lacks jurisdiction over his Petition.

Section 23-110 bars federal habeas review of a Superior Court conviction unless the prisoner shows that its remedy is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of detention.

Briscoe v. Jarvis · filed 2015-01-09(g)

The only way Briscoe could bring his Petition in this Court is if he could show that § 23-110 were somehow “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” Garris v. Lindsay, 794 F.2d 722, 726 (D.C. Cir. 1986). Briscoe has failed to make this showing, and the Court, accordingly, lacks jurisdiction over his Petition.

Section 23-110(a)(1) provides D.C. prisoners an adequate remedy for constitutional claims of actual innocence.

Autrey v. United States · filed 2012-07-23(a)(1)

Section 23-llO(a)(l) provides an adequate remedy for D.C. prisoners to pursue constitutional claims of actual innocence.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of a trial counsel claim when an available § 23-110 motion has not been pursued, because failing to pursue it does not make the local remedy inadequate or ineffective.

Johnson v. Wilson · filed 2014-11-05(g)

The local remedy is neither inadequate nor ineffective simply because petitioner has not pursued it.

An unsuccessful prior collateral attack does not make the § 23-110 remedy inadequate or ineffective.

Coleman v. Wilson · filed 2013-09-20(g)

Petitioner’s lack of success in his previous attempt to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence does not render his local remedy inadequate or ineffective.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of claims that can be raised under § 23-110 unless the local remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Richardson v. United States · filed 2013-11-14(g)

To the extent that petitioner seeks review of claims arising from errors that may have occurred during criminal proceedings in the Superior Court and from trial counsel’s allegedly deficient performance, this Court cannot entertain them because petitioner does not show that his remedy under D.C. Code § 23-110 is inadequate or ineffective.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review when an unsuccessful local collateral attack is the only basis for claiming that the Superior Court remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Stewart v. United States · filed 2014-02-18(g)

The petitioner’s lack of success in his previous attempt to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence does not render his local remedy inadequate or ineffective, see Wilson v. Ojj?ce of the Chairperson, 892 F. Supp. 277, 280 (D.D.C. 1995), and he has no recourse in this federal district court.

Section 23-110(g) does not bar a federal habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because a motion under the section cannot raise that claim.

Gorbey v. United States · filed 2014-07-17(g)

Section 23-110(g), in other words, does not bar habeas petitions brought in federal court based on claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

Section 23-110(g) permits a District of Columbia prisoner denied relief under § 23-110 to pursue federal habeas relief only if that remedy is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of the detention.

Sanchez-Rengifo v. Caraway · filed 2015-08-14(g)

If a District of Columbia petitioner has been denied relief under § 23-110, he may proceed on a federal habeas claim only if he establishes that the § 23-110 remedy “is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” D.C.Code § 23-110(g).

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of an actual innocence claim that can be brought in Superior Court under subsection (a).

Gonzalez v. Stone · filed 2016-04-13(g)

But a claim of actual innocence may be brought under D.C. Code ' 23-110(a) and, thus, is foreclosed in this court by subsection (g).

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of a D.C. Superior Court sentence unless the motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of detention.

In Re Damon Donelson · filed 2017-04-06(g)

The only way that Donelson could bring this Petition in this Court is by showing that § 23-110(a) provides an ineffective or inadequate remedy to test the legality of his detention.

Section 23-110(g) permits federal habeas review of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims because those claims cannot be raised in a section 23-110 motion.

Head v. Wilson · filed 2015-06-26(g)

In other words, Williams simply made explicit what had already been implicit: when the D.C. Court of Appeals barred prisoners from raising IAAC claims under section 23-110 in the early 1980s, the plain terms of section 23-110(g) opened the door to federal habeas review for those claims.

Section 23-110 does not bar federal habeas review of an exhausted ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim because the Superior Court cannot hear that claim.

Bethea v. United States · filed 2016-01-11

The Court of Appeals has determined that § 23-110 does not bar a habeas petition challenging the effectiveness of appellate counsel “because the Superior Court lacks authority to entertain a section 23-110 motion challenging the effectiveness of appellate counsel.” Williams v. Martinez, 586 F.3d 995, 999 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Thus, “D.C. prisoners who challenge the effectiveness of appellate counsel through a motion to recall the mandate in the D.C. Court of Appeals will get a second bite at the apple in federal court.” Id. at 1000. Mr. Bethea has satisfied the exhaustion requirement. Therefore, his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel may proceed in this Court under “the standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Id. at 1002.

Section 23-110(g) bars a federal court from hearing a D.C. prisoner’s § 2241 petition unless the prisoner shows that the § 23-110 remedy is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of the detention.

Whitlow v. Brick Tripp · filed 2015-10-28(g)

In the absence of any assertion, much less showing, by Whitlow on remand that D.C. Code § 23-110 (Supp. 2014) is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention, ... the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Whitlow’s § 2241 petition.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of claims that could be raised under section 23-110(a) unless the local motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective; denial of a motion alone does not make the remedy inadequate or ineffective.

Johnson v. Matevousian · filed 2016-05-19(g)

All of the grounds asserted in the instant petition present viable claims under D.C. Code § 23-110. ... And the mere fact that the D.C. courts denied Johnson’s § 23-110 motion, see Johnson, 633 A.2d at 831-33, does not render the remedy inadequate or ineffective, particularly since he was provided “a full and fair opportunity to litigate a colorable claim in the District of Columbia courts.” ... Accordingly, this habeas action is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of claims covered by an available local remedy; losing a motion does not make that remedy inadequate or ineffective.

Graham v. Usp II · filed 2016-05-20(g)

The record establishes petitioner’s pursuit of that remedy; the mere fact that he was not successful in the D.C. courts does not render it inadequate or ineffective. ... Petitioner’s claims predicated on trial counsel’s performance and trial errors are barred by D.C. Code § 23-110(g), and petitioner failed to exhaust his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel by presenting the underlying issue to the state court.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of a trial counsel ineffectiveness claim unless the prisoner shows that the Superior Court motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

McCoy v. Thomas · filed 2016-06-16(g)

Therefore, the Court finds this ground for relief jurisdictionally barred by D.C. Code § 23-110(g).

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review unless the Superior Court motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of the prisoner's detention.

Bell v. United States · filed 2016-06-27(g)

The petitioner does not demonstrate that the remedy available to him under D.C. Code § 23-110 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his conviction and subsequent incarceration. He has no recourse in this federal district court, and, therefore, the Court will deny the petition and dismiss this action.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review when the Superior Court remedy is available; failure to obtain relief locally does not make that remedy inadequate or ineffective.

Hood v. Spaulding · filed 2017-04-03(g)

His lack of success does not render the local remedy inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention; therefore, this court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the instant petition.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of claims cognizable under § 23-110, even when the prisoner was unsuccessful in local court.

Moore v. United States of America · filed 2017-05-24(g)

Because the instant petition is grounded upon claims that are cognizable under D.C. Code § 23-110, this court cannot exercise jurisdiction over it.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review when a motion under Section 23-110 provides an adequate and effective way to test the legality of a D.C. Superior Court prisoner’s detention.

Reed v. Thomas · filed 2018-02-15(g)

For the reasons stated below, the court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the habeas petition because the remedy under D.C. Code § 23-110 is neither inadequate nor ineffective to test the legality of Petitioner’s detention.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of trial error claims that can be raised under § 23-110(a), but does not bar ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims.

Roberson v. United States · filed 2018-11-02(g)

All of Roberson’s trial error claims are jurisdictionally barred by § 23-110(g). ... In contrast to his claims of trial error, Roberson’s ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim is not jurisdictionally barred by § 23-110(g).

An unsuccessful § 23-110 motion does not make the remedy inadequate or ineffective for purposes of federal habeas review.

Dews v. United States · filed 2015-12-17(g)

Petitioner’s lack of success does not render the remedies available under § 23-110 inadequate or ineffective.

Section 23-110(g) bars a federal court from hearing a prisoner's collateral challenge unless the Superior Court motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of the detention.

Green v. United States of America · filed 2016-04-12(g)

Plaintiff does not demonstrate that the remedy available to him under D.C. Code § 23-110 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his conviction and subsequent incarceration, and he has no recourse in this federal district court, and, therefore, the Court will deny the petition and dismiss this action.

Section 23-110 bars federal habeas review when a prisoner had an adequate and effective Superior Court remedy; an unsuccessful motion does not make that remedy inadequate or ineffective.

Brown v. United States · filed 2016-05-02(g)

Here, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the remedy available to him under § 23- 110 is inadequate or ineffective. Twice Petitioner presented challenges to his convictions and sentences in the Superior Court, and his “mere lack of success . . . does not pave the way for collateral attack” in this federal district court.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review when the local motion remedy is adequate and effective; losing earlier motions does not make that remedy inadequate or ineffective.

Void v. United States · filed 2018-01-04(g)

There is no indication that the remedies in the District of Columbia courts are inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of the petitioner’s conviction. His lack of success on these motions—and his many other challenges to his conviction and sentence—does not render his local remedy inadequate or ineffective.

Section 23-110(g) permits a prisoner to seek habeas relief under § 2241 only if the remedy under § 23-110 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of the detention.

El-Amin v. United States · filed 2018-06-05(g)

As it relates to this case, to allow a petitioner to pursue relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, both D.C. Code § 23-110 and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 require that the petitioner must demonstrate that the respective statute “is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review when the local remedy is adequate and effective; an unsuccessful prior collateral attack does not make that remedy inadequate or ineffective.

Mack v. United States · filed 2017-06-26(g)

The petitioner does not demonstrate that the remedy available to him under D.C. Code § 23-110 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his conviction and subsequent incarceration His lack of success on a prior collateral attack on his conviction does not render his local remedy inadequate or ineffective See Wilson v. ijice of the Chairperson, 892 F. Supp. 277, 280 (D.D.C. 1995).

Section 23-110 provides a remedy for claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and actual innocence; when that remedy is adequate and effective, a D.C. prisoner has no recourse in federal district court.

Medley v. Baltazar · filed 2017-08-07

The Court concludes that Petitioner has no recourse in this federal district court. “A motion to vacate sentence under [§] 23-110 is the standard means of raising a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel,” Garmon v. United States, 684 A.2d 327, 330 n.3 (D.C. 1996) (citation omitted), and “the § 23-110 remedy is neither inadequate nor ineffective to test the legality of a D.C. prisoner’s conviction where he has raised a claim of actual innocence,” Moore v. United States, __ F. Supp. 3d __, __, 2017 WL 2274467, at *2 (D.D.C. May 24, 2017) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The petition, therefore, will be dismissed.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas relief when the D.C. court remedy was adequate to test detention, even if the prisoner can no longer use it because the claim was resolved on direct appeal.

Waters v. Lockett · filed 2018-07-24(g)

Simply because Waters chose to raise his Fifth Amendment claim on direct appeal, and was therefore barred from pursuing a § 23-110 motion on the issue, that did not render any potential § 23-110 remedy “inadequate or ineffective,” nor open the door to federal habeas relief.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of a Superior Court conviction unless the local remedy is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of detention.

Agedah v. Superior Court of the District of Columbia-Criminal Division · filed 2019-07-03(g)

This petitioner “has no recourse to a federal judicial forum unless the local remedy is ‘inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.’” Garris v. Lindsay, 794 F.2d 722, 726 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (quoting D.C. Code § 23-110(g)), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 993 (1986).

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of a Superior Court prisoner’s sentencing claim when the prisoner can seek relief under § 23-110(a) and has not shown that remedy to be inadequate or ineffective.

In Re Douglas Wardrick · filed 2019-10-16(g)

The government argues that D.C. Code § 23-110(g) bars federal court review of petitioner’s claim. Opp’n at 4-5. The Court agrees. ... Any claim petitioner may have in light of Johnson goes to the constitutionality of his sentence, which is redressable under D.C. Code § 23-110(a). It does not appear that petitioner has pursued his local remedy, nor has he shown that remedy to be inadequate or ineffective. So, the Court has no choice but to dismiss the instant petition for want of jurisdiction.

Section 23-110(g) does not bar a federal habeas claim alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

Dyer-El v. United States of America · filed 2020-06-29(g)

Claim 3(b)(ii) raises a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel which is not barred under D.C. Code § 23-110(g).

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of a D.C. Superior Court conviction unless the local remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

SMITH v. WHITE · filed 2020-07-23(g)

Section 23-110 also includes exclusivity language that renders the writ of habeas corpus unavailable to District of Columbia offenders unless the local remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Section 23-110(g) permits a D.C. prisoner to seek federal habeas relief if the prisoner shows that the local motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of detention.

Smith v. Finley · filed 2020-09-03(g)

The first is contained in § 23-110(g), which provides that a D.C. prisoner may seek a federal writ of habeas corpus if it “appears that the remedy by motion [under § 23-110] is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” D.C. Code § 23-110(g). ... First, Mr. Smith had not explained why his § 23-110 remedy was inadequate or ineffective. ... Thus, the Court remains convinced it lacks jurisdiction over his petition.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of a D.C. prisoner’s trial error claims unless the prisoner shows that the Superior Court motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Fenner v. Barnhart · filed 2020-10-07(g)

But a D.C. prisoner’s claims based on trial error and trial counsel’s performance “are indeed foreclosed from federal court review by D.C. Code § 23–110” and Petitioner “has not demonstrated the inadequacy of that available remedy.” Coleman v. Ives, 841 F. Supp. 2d 333, 335 (D.D.C. 2012). Therefore, this case will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of a D.C. prisoner's claims unless the Superior Court motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Miles v. Khallis · filed 2021-05-12(g)

The local statute “divests federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas petitions by prisoners who could have raised viable claims pursuant to § 23-110(a).” Williams v. Martinez, 586 F.3d 995, 998 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Petitioner has not claimed, let alone shown, that his local remedy is inadequate to address his intended grounds for relief.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of claims that can be raised under § 23-110(a), including claims of prosecutorial misconduct or an illegal sentence, even when relief in the District of Columbia courts was unsuccessful.

Davis v. Brittin · filed 2019-01-29(g)

If, as Petitioner represents, see Pet. at 3, he has raised these issues in the District of Columbia courts, he has no recourse in federal court merely because his efforts were unsuccessful.

Section 23-110(g) limits federal habeas review for D.C. prisoners unless the Superior Court remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

King v. United States · filed 2019-04-17(g)

Petitioner’s recourse lies, if at a11, in the Superior Court under D.C. Code § 23-110.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of a D.C. Superior Court prisoner's ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim when the local remedy is adequate and effective.

Hill v. United States · filed 2019-05-01(g)

Petitioner’s recourse lies, if at all, in the Superior Court under D.C. Code § 23~110.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas relief for a Superior Court prisoner unless the motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of the prisoner’s detention.

Parks v. United States · filed 2019-08-08(g)

Here, the petitioner does not show that his § 23-110 remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review when a D.C. prisoner can bring the claim through a Section 23-110(a) motion and has not shown that remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Perry v. Ebbert · filed 2019-08-21(g)

Mr. Perry has not shown that he cannot bring his claim under D.C. Code § 23-110(a), so the Court lacks jurisdiction here.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review unless the petitioner shows that the D.C. Superior Court motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Ciacci v. United States Probation Office · filed 2019-09-16(g)

Ciacci fails to demonstrate that the remedy available to him under § 23-110 is or was ineffective or inadequate. Pursuant to the prohibition in § 23-110(g), this Court lacks jurisdiction and venue to entertain this Petition.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of a Superior Court prisoner's claims unless the local motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Crum v. United States · filed 2020-01-30(g)

Petitioner’s recourse lies, if at all, in the Superior Court under D.C. Code § 23-110. ... Petitioner has not claimed, let alone shown, that his local remedy is inadequate to address his grounds for relief.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim when the prisoner had a remedy under § 23-110, even if the Superior Court denied relief.

Greenwood v. Bolster · filed 2020-04-21(g)

He had a remedy under District of Columbia law even though his motion was summarily denied. ... This court, therefore, lacks jurisdiction to entertain Greenwood’s IATC claim.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review unless the motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of detention.

Brown v. Warden, FCC Coleman - USP I · filed 2020-05-08(g)

This section divests jurisdiction from federal courts over claims for habeas corpus relief absent a showing that § 23-110 is inadequate or ineffective.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas relief for a Superior Court prisoner who has not sought relief under § 23-110, unless that remedy is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of detention.

Crum v. United States · filed 2020-05-27(g)

Petitioner does not show that he has availed himself of a remedy under D.C. Code § 23-110, nor does he demonstrate that this his remedy under District of Columbia law is inadequate or ineffective.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review when a D.C. prisoner has an adequate remedy under § 23-110.

Smith v. Finley · filed 2021-03-04(g)

Section 23-110 deprives the Court of jurisdiction over this claim.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of a D.C. Superior Court sentence unless the prisoner shows that its remedy is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of detention.

Brown v. Warden FCC Coleman - USP I · filed 2021-08-06(g)

Brown has failed to show that § 23-110(g) is an inadequate remedy and the district court therefore correctly dismissed his § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of a defective indictment claim when a § 23-110 motion provides an adequate remedy, even if a previous motion failed.

Smith v. Andrews · filed 2019-07-08(g)

As such, § 23-110 is an adequate remedy, and this Court must dismiss his § 2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 23-110 provides a local motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a D.C. sentence that a prisoner must pursue before seeking federal habeas relief.

REED v. MARLER · filed 2019-10-25(a)

Mr. Reed did not plead he moved for relief under the District of Columbia Code section 23-110. Because he did not move for relief under section 23-110, he did not exhaust the local remedy and Section 2241(c)(3) does not provide jurisdiction over this claim.

Section 23-110(g) permits a federal habeas challenge to a D.C. conviction only if the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of detention.

Miles v. Birkholz · filed 2020-03-12(g)

Further, Miles has not attempted to show that a motion under D.C. Code § 23-110 would have been “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention,” such that he might make a collateral challenge to his conviction in this § 2241 petition.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of a Superior Court prisoner's claim unless the local motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective; an unsuccessful motion alone does not establish that exception.

Bey v. United States · filed 2020-03-26(g)

Petitioner has not shown the inefficacy of D.C. Code § 23-110(a) to bring his claim within the jurisdiction of an Article III court; therefore, this case will be dismissed.

Section 23-110(g) does not permit federal habeas relief merely because the Superior Court denied a prisoner’s § 23-110 motion.

Johnson v. United States · filed 2020-04-15(g)

Here, the petitioner availed himself of a § 23-110 remedy, and the remedy is not inadequate or ineffective because the Superior Court ruled against him.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review unless the local motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective; an unsuccessful motion does not make the remedy inadequate or ineffective.

Kebede v. United States · filed 2020-06-12(g)

Further, a prisoner's lack of success in his previous attempts to collaterally attack his conviction and sentence by means of a motion under D.C. Code § 23-110(g) does not render this remedy inadequate or ineffective.

Unsuccessful § 23-110 motions do not make the local remedy inadequate or ineffective for purposes of federal habeas review.

Champion v. Beasley · filed 2020-06-26(g)

Champion’s argument that his multiple efforts to challenge his conviction via § 23-110 have been unsuccessful does not make that remedy inadequate or ineffective.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of claims that could be raised in Superior Court unless the local remedy is inadequate or ineffective; unsuccessful prior motions alone do not meet that exception.

Hood v. Spaulding · filed 2020-12-09(g)

Hood’s argument that his multiple efforts to challenge his conviction via §23-110 have been unsuccessful does not make that remedy inadequate or ineffective.

Section 23-110(g) requires a prisoner seeking federal habeas review to show that the section’s remedy is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of the conviction.

Kebede v. United States · filed 2021-04-09(g)

Appellant has not demonstrated that his remedy under D.C. Code § 23-110 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his conviction. See D.C. Code § 23-110(g); Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1042-43 (D.C. Cir. 1998).

Section 23-110(g) allows a D.C. prisoner to seek habeas relief in another court only upon a showing that the motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of detention.

Feather-Gorbey v. Warden · filed 2022-02-14(g)

His ability to file in a federal or state court rather than courts of the District of Columbia is dependent upon his showing of the inadequacy or ineffectiveness of Section 23-110 to test the legality of his detention.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of claims challenging a D.C. Superior Court conviction unless the prisoner shows that the section 23-110 remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Dyer-El v. The United States of America · filed 2022-06-29(g)

Once again, Dyer-E] fails to demonstrate that the remedy afforded by D.C. Code § 23- 110(a) is inadequate and ineffective to test his convictions for the majority of his claims.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of a D.C. Superior Court conviction unless the prisoner shows that the local remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Hunter v. United States · filed 2022-10-24(g)

Petitioner’s recourse lies, if at all, in the Superior Court under D.C. Code § 23-110. ... Here, petitioner has not claimed, let alone shown, that his local remedy is inadequate to address his grounds for relief as to his conviction and sentence in D.C. Superior Court.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review unless the petitioner shows that the Superior Court motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Hill v. District of Columbia · filed 2023-02-10(g)

Although petitioner discusses, in passing, his challenges in pursuit of an appeal, he does not address any efforts that he has made in pursuit of post-conviction relief pursuant to § 23-110, let alone established that the remedy was inadequate or ineffective.

Section 23-110 limits federal habeas review of a D.C. conviction to cases where the local remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Gorbey v. Warden, USP Thomson · filed 2023-06-08(g)

This section follows the language in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)’s savings clause, and to challenge a D.C. conviction in a federal habeas petition, the petitioner must demonstrate that his offense conduct is no longer considered criminal and that he could not raise the challenge in a prior D.C. proceeding.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas relief for a D.C. Code offender challenging a Superior Court conviction unless the Superior Court motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of detention.

Wall v. United States of America · filed 2025-04-29(g)

This petitioner has no recourse in federal court “if it appears that [he] has failed to make a motion for relief under this section or that the Superior Court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.”

Section 23-110 bars federal review of an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim unless the prisoner shows that the local remedy is inadequate or ineffective; losing a motion under the section does not make that remedy inadequate.

Bunch v. United States · filed 2021-08-27(g)

Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim may not be considered because petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the remedy available to him under D.C. Code § 23-110 for judicial review of that claim is inadequate or ineffective.

Section 23-110 provides the avenue for challenging a D.C. Superior Court sentence unless that remedy is inadequate or ineffective to test its legality.

Crum v. United States · filed 2022-03-22(g)

To the extent appellant seeks to challenge a sentence imposed by the District of Columbia Superior Court, the appropriate avenue is by way of a motion in that court pursuant to D.C. Code § 23-110. Appellant has not demonstrated that his remedy under D.C. Code § 23-110 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his sentence.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas relief unless the prisoner establishes that the local post-conviction remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Hill v. Government for the District of Columbia · filed 2023-07-31(g)

Although petitioner broadly contends that he has “no judicial remedies,” presumably in the District of Columbia local courts, he does not explain that contention, nor does address any efforts that he has made in pursuit of an appeal or of any post-conviction relief pursuant to § 23-110, let alone establish that his local remedies were somehow inadequate or ineffective.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of claims covered by the Superior Court’s collateral remedy unless that remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Lawrence v. Woods · filed 2022-07-25(g)

Here, Lawrence’s ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims do not fall within any of the above-noted exceptions and do not present any extraordinary issues that would otherwise merit consideration. Thus, even if the Court were inclined to conclude that Lawrence had constitutionally deficient counsel—and he appears to have a stronger claim than many habeas petitioners, see Pet’s. Reply at 2–3; Pet’s. Exs. at 8–18—the Court is without power to remedy such a violation. D.C. Code § 23–110(g).

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of trial error and trial counsel claims that can be raised under section 23-110(a) unless the local remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

In Re: Antonio Crawford · filed 2022-11-03(g)

Petitioner’s claims premised on trial counsel’s performance and trial error are barred by D.C. Code § 23-110(g), and petitioner failed to exhaust his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel by presenting it to the DCCA.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal court review of a challenge to a D.C. Superior Court conviction or sentence when the Superior Court motion provides an adequate and effective remedy.

Hill v. Government for the District of Columbia · filed 2022-12-28(g)

First, insofar as plaintiff is mounting a challenge to his Superior Court conviction or sentence, this court is without jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review of a D.C. conviction unless the prisoner shows that the § 23-110 remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Madsen v. United States of America · filed 2023-03-24(g)

Because the Petitioner has not established that his remedy under D.C. Code § 23-110 is inadequate or ineffective to redress his claims, this Court lacks jurisdiction over such claim and the claim should be dismissed and his petition will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review when the local motion remedy remains adequate and effective, and a roughly two-year delay did not make that remedy inadequate.

DAVIS v. CARROLL · filed 2023-04-10(g)

As a result, D.C. Code § 23-110(g) divests this Court of jurisdiction to hear this case.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review when a § 23-110 motion adequately tests a prisoner's claims, including actual innocence, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and prosecutorial misconduct.

Shakur v. Warden · filed 2023-08-25(g)

Because none of these arguments suffices to establish that the relief available to him under § 23-110 is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention,” see D.C. Code § 23-110(g), the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over his petition.

Section 23-110 generally bars federal habeas review of a D.C. Superior Court conviction unless the local remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Andrew-Bey v. Garland · filed 2024-02-12

To the extent Petitioner is challenging his D.C. conviction, it is established that D.C. “prisoner[s] ha[ve] no recourse to a federal judicial forum unless [it is shown that] the local remedy,” D.C. Code § 23-110, “is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” ... The instant Petition does not present a discernible ground to overcome the jurisdictional barriers to review by this Court.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas relief for a challenge to a Superior Court sentence unless the Superior Court motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of detention.

Blanchard v. United States Parole Commission · filed 2025-09-02(g)

Petitioner has no recourse in federal court “if it appears that [he] has failed to make a motion for relief under [Section 23-110(a)] or that the Superior Court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” ... He has made no such showing.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal district court review of a Superior Court prisoner’s habeas petition unless the motion remedy is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of detention.

Johnson v. United States · filed 2026-01-05(g)

This federal district court cannot entertain Petitioner’s habeas petition “if it appears that [he] has failed to make a motion for relief under this section or that the Superior Court has denied him relief, unless it also appears that the remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” D.C. Code § 23-110(g); see Williams v. Martinez, 586 F.3d 995, 998 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (explaining that § 23-110 “divests federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas petitions by prisoners who could have raised viable claims pursuant to section 23-110(a)”). Petitioner make no such showing.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review when a Superior Court prisoner can raise the claim through a § 23-110(a) motion, unless that remedy is inadequate or ineffective.

Johnson v. United States · filed 2026-02-27(g)

Because Mr. Johnson could bring his claim under Section 23-110(a), the court must dismiss this petition for lack of jurisdiction under Section 23-110(g) and deny his outstanding motions and mandamus petition as moot.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas review when a D.C. prisoner can raise the claim through a local motion under § 23-110(a).

Hill v. Rickard · filed 2026-03-04(g)

Because Petitioner’s claim is available locally by motion under § 23-110(a), this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain his habeas petition.

Section 23-110(g) bars federal habeas relief from a D.C. Superior Court sentence when the prisoner has not shown that the local remedy was inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of detention.

Blanchard v. USPC · filed 2026-04-29(g)

The district court correctly held that, insofar as appellant seeks relief from his D.C. Superior Court sentence, he has no recourse in federal court because he failed to show that he previously filed a motion in the D.C. Superior Court under D.C. Code § 23-110 or that such a motion was “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.” D.C. Code § 23-110(g); see Williams v. Martinez, 586 F.3d 995, 998 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (observing that D.C. Code section 23-110(g) “divests federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas petitions by prisoners who could have raised viable claims pursuant to section 23-110(a)”).

Section 23-110 does not provide a motion to vacate sentence for an insanity acquittee committed to a mental hospital, because that commitment is not a sentence.

Malone v. United States · filed 1999-05-27

Moreover, an insanity acquittee committed to a mental hospital is not considered to be serving a “sentence.” See Morrison v. United States, 579 A.2d 686, 688 (D.C.1990) (holding that a motion to vacate sentence under D.C.Code § 23-110 is unavailable to an NGI defendant, citing O’Beirne v. Overholser, 109 U.S.App.D.C. 279, 282, 287 F.2d 133, 136 (1960)).