Chaparosa v. 1871 Corp. United States (D.D.C. 2011). · Go Syfert
Chaparosa v. 1871 Corp. United States (D.D.C. 2011). Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Chaparosa
v.
1871 Corporate United States
Civil Action No. 2011-1017.
District Court, District of Columbia.
May 31, 2011.
Judge Ellen S. Huvelle.
Published  |  Civil
FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MAY 3 1 2011
Clerk, U S 01 trl
Courts for the ~is~r~~ ~;~~~~~gra

Darrell Wayne Chaparosa, )
)
Plaintiff, )

v.
)
) Civil Action No.
11 1017
)
1871 Corporate United States et at., )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of the plaintiff s pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring dismissal of a prisoner's complaint upon a determination that the complaint, among other grounds, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted).

The plaintiff is a Montana state prisoner. He has filed a document captioned "Common

Law Petition for a Common Law Writ of Mandamus," but the action he seeks to compel makes

no sense. See CompI. at 4 (seeking, inter alia, order "to remove, dismiss and discharge any and all Black Kingdom I white women from any/all Black Kingdom I services .... "). Plaintiff

claims that he is "illegally imprisoned" at the Montana correctional facility. CompI. at 1. To the extent that he challenges his incarceration, plaintiff has no recourse here. Federal court review of state convictions is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 only after the exhaustion of available state remedies. See 28 U.S.c. §2254(b)(l). Thereafter, "an application for a writ of habeas corpus [] made by a person in custody under the judgment and sentence of a State court ... may be filed in Ii

the district court for the district wherein such person is in custody or in the district court for the district within which the State court was held which convicted and sentenced [petitioner] and each of such district courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the application." 28

U.S.c. § 2241 (d). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

L/~· J H~/~ United States District Judge ~

Date: May ~b ,2011

[*2]