JOHNSON v. MINER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DANNY LEE JOHNSON, 	)
)
Petitioner 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-04310 (UNA)
)
JOHNATHAN C. MINER, 	)
)
)
Respondent. 	)
Memorandum Opinion
In January 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania transferred
this matter to this District. ECF No. 4. 	For reasons unknown to this Court, the matter was not
actually transferred to this District until December 2025. ECF No. 5. 	On February 4, 2026,
Petitioner filed a motion to amend his existing petition. ECF No. 6. Upon review, the motion to
amend the petition is granted, the relief sought in the amended petition is denied, and this matter
is dismissed without prejudice.
Petitioner challenges his 1996 conviction, alleging that he did not “waive his constitutional
right to be indicted,” and contending that an additional bank theft charge was added without fair
notice and despite evidence to the contrary. See id. at 2. 	Petitioner has since been released from
custody, but is currently on probation, and he alleges that his current probation order is unlawful
because it arises from underlying unconstitutional conviction. See id. at 3. He asks this Court to
review decisions of the D.C. Court of Appeals, arguing that it “committed grave error in failing to
rule that [Superior Court] Rule 11 was violated upon determining that a constructive amendment
occurred,” and it further “erred in ruling” that the new charge was not a “constructive amendment.”
Case 1:25-cv-04310-UNA Document 8 Filed 04/02/26 Page 1 of 3

See id. at 1–2 (citing Johnson v. United States, 812 A.2d 234 (D.C. 2002). He further seeks
“termination of probation, and vacation of the illegal convictions/sentences.” Id. at 3.
First, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review or enjoin decisions of the D.C. Superior Court
or the D.C. Court of Appeals. See Fleming v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994),
cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1150 (1995) (relying on District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,
460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983) and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415, 416 (1923)). Insofar
as Petitioner seeks review of the determinations of the D.C. Superior Court, including his probation
order, that is the province of the D.C. Court of Appeals, and insofar as he seeks review of the
determinations of the D.C. Court of Appeals, that is the province of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Second, D.C. Code § 23-110, in relevant part provides:
A prisoner in custody under sentence of the Superior Court claiming the
right to be released upon the ground that (1) the sentence was imposed in
violation of the Constitution of the United States or the laws of the District
of Columbia, (2) the court was without jurisdiction to impose the sentence,
(3) the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, (4) the
sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court to
vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence.
D.C. Code § 23-110(a). A 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.” D.C. Code § 23-110(g); see Garris v. Lindsay, 794 F.2d 722, 727 (D.C.
Cir. 1986). 	This 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). And lack of success in previous attempts to attack a conviction
and sentence does not, by itself, render § 23-110 “inadequate” or “ineffective.” 	See Wilson v.
Office of the Chairperson, 892 F. Supp. 277, 280 (D.D.C. 1995). Here, Petitioner has not stated,
Case 1:25-cv-04310-UNA Document 8 Filed 04/02/26 Page 2 of 3

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.
For these reasons, this habeas action is dismissed without prejudice for want of jurisdiction.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). A separate order accompanies this opinion.
Date: 	April 2, 2026 	/s/______________________
AMIR H. ALI
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-04310-UNA Document 8 Filed 04/02/26 Page 3 of 3