JOHNSON v. USA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ABRAHAM JOHNSON,
Petitioner,
v.
USA,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 25 - 2289 (UNA)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In 2024, Abraham Johnson was convicted in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, unlawful possession of a firearm,
and additional firearm-related offenses, all in violation of the D.C. Code. United States v. Abraham
Johnson, 2024-CF2-001338 (D.C.). 	He is currently serving a forty-eight-month sentence at
USP Canaan in Waymart, Pennsylvania. 	ECF No. 1, at 5.1 	In June 2025, Mr. Johnson filed a
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
seeking to vacate his “conviction for possession of ammo/firearm” under the U.S. Constitution and
Executive Order 14206. 	ECF No. 1, at 1. 	After determining that Mr. Johnson was seeking to
challenge the validity of his Superior Court conviction, a judge in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania construed the petition as arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and transferred the case to
this court. ECF No. 3. Mr. Johnson has since filed a motion for a status update, ECF No. 6, two
1 When citing ECF No. 1, the court uses the page numbers generated by CM/ECF, rather than any
internal pagination.
Case 1:25-cv-02289-UNA Document 11 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 3

2
motions for orders on his habeas petition, ECF Nos. 7, 8, and a petition for a writ of mandamus,
ECF No. 9.
Congress enacted D.C. Code § 23-110(g) to “vest the Superior Court with exclusive
jurisdiction over most collateral challenges by prisoners sentenced in that court.” 	Williams v.
Martinez, 586 F.3d 995, 1000 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Section 23-110 “establishe[s] a remedy analogous
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for prisoners sentenced in D.C. Superior Court who wish[ ] to challenge their
conviction or sentence.” Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1042 (D.C. Cir. 1998). As relevant
here,
[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a prisoner who is
authorized to apply for relief by motion pursuant to this section shall not
be entertained by . . . any Federal . . . court if it appears that the applicant
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). The remedy 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.” Ibrahim v. United States, 661 F.3d 1141, 1146
(D.C. Cir. 2011).
Put simply, Section 23-110(g) “divests federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas
petitions by prisoners who could have raised viable claims pursuant to § 23-110(a).” Williams,
586 F.3d at 998. Such viable claims include “the right to be released upon the ground that . . . the
sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the laws of the
District of Columbia” or that “the sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack.” D.C. Code
§ 23-110(a). “A motion for such relief may be made at any time.” Id. § 23-110(b)(1). Because
Case 1:25-cv-02289-UNA Document 11 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 3

3
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. A contemporaneous order will issue.
SO ORDERED.
LOREN L. ALIKHAN
United States District Judge
Date: 	February 27, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-02289-UNA Document 11 Filed 02/27/26 Page 3 of 3