Mack v. United States
Civil Action No. 2017-1120
| D.D.C. | Jun 26, 2017Background
- Petitioner Jonathan Mack is serving a 32-year sentence imposed by the D.C. Superior Court for first-degree murder while armed and related firearms offenses.
- Mack, proceeding pro se, filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claiming trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction on Mack's intoxication at the time of the offense.
- Mack previously litigated the same ineffective-assistance claim in a D.C. post-conviction proceeding; the Superior Court denied relief and the D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed.
- D.C. law (D.C. Code § 23-110) provides a statutory post-conviction remedy to vacate, set aside, or correct sentences and limits federal court review when that remedy was available but not pursued or was denied, unless the local remedy is inadequate or ineffective.
- The government argued Mack has not shown the § 23-110 remedy is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.
- The District Court granted Mack in forma pauperis status but dismissed his habeas petition, concluding federal courts lack jurisdiction because Mack failed to show the local remedy was inadequate or ineffective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court may hear Mack's § 2254 habeas claim despite available D.C. statutory remedy | Mack argues ineffective assistance claim warrants federal habeas review | Gov't argues § 23-110 provides an adequate local remedy and federal court lacks jurisdiction under § 23-110(g) | Court: Dismissed habeas; federal court lacks jurisdiction because Mack did not show local remedy inadequate or ineffective |
| Whether prior unsuccessful collateral attack renders the D.C. remedy inadequate | Mack contends prior failure should not bar federal review | Gov't contends prior unsuccessful collateral attack does not make the remedy inadequate | Court: Prior lack of success does not make the § 23-110 remedy inadequate or ineffective; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Alston v. United States, 590 A.2d 511 (D.C. 1991) (describing grounds for relief under D.C. Code § 23-110)
- Williams v. Martinez, 586 F.3d 995 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (interpreting § 23-110(g) as divesting federal courts of habeas jurisdiction when a local remedy was available)
- Garris v. Lindsay, 794 F.2d 722 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (federal courts lack jurisdiction when adequate state remedy exists)
- Wilson v. Office of the Chairperson, 892 F. Supp. 277 (D.D.C. 1995) (failure of prior local collateral attack does not render local remedy inadequate)
- Rahim v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 77 F. Supp. 3d 140 (D.D.C. 2015) (noting ineffective-assistance claims often brought under D.C. Code § 23-110)