Earle v. United States
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101376
D.D.C.2011Background
- Earle was convicted in DC Superior Court in 1986 of two counts of assault with intent to kill while armed; sentenced to two consecutive 15-years-to-life terms in 1987.
- On June 2, 1987, Earle was also convicted of first-degree murder while armed, assault with a dangerous weapon, and carrying a pistol without a license; sentenced to 20 years to life for the murder and additional terms for the other crimes.
- After numerous direct and collateral attacks in DC and federal courts, Earle filed a pro se habeas petition on May 14, 2010, asserting ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel.
- Respondent moved to dismiss the petition on jurisdiction grounds, arguing that DC remedies under D.C. Code § 23-110 must be exhausted before federal review and that the remedies were not inadequate or ineffective.
- The Court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, invoking § 23-110 as the exclusive remedy and finding no showing that it was inadequate or ineffective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the federal court has jurisdiction to hear the habeas petition. | Earle argues federal review is appropriate notwithstanding DC remedies. | Respondent asserts DC § 23-110 exhaustion divests federal courts of jurisdiction. | Court lacks jurisdiction under § 23-110. |
| Whether § 23-110 is inadequate to permit federal review of ineffective trial counsel claims. | § 23-110 is inadequate for this claim. | Inadequacy not shown; denial by DC courts does not render remedy inadequate. | Remedy not inadequate; jurisdiction lacking. |
| Whether the appellate counsel claim is reviewable without recalling the DC Court of Appeals mandate. | Remand or recall of mandate should permit federal review. | Recall not occurred; remedy not exhausted. | Court cannot consider appellate-law claim pending mandate recall. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (DC § 23-110 governs post-conviction relief; federal review barred absent inadequacy)
- Jerome Stevens Pharms., Inc. v. FDA, 402 F.3d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (jurisdictional review; treat allegations as true for jurisdictional motion)
- Beethoven.com LLC v. Librarian of Congress, 394 F.3d 939 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (limits on federal jurisdiction; interpret pleadings in petitioner’s favor)
- Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence with the Million Mom March v. Ashcroft, 339 F. Supp. 2d 68 (D.D.C. 2004) (persuasive on burdens of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Scolaro v. D.C. Bd. of Elections and Ethics, 104 F. Supp.2d 18 (D.D.C. 2000) (court may consider materials beyond pleadings to resolve jurisdiction)