TANYA S. CHUTKAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MEMORANDUM OPINION
TANYA S. CHUTKAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the court on its initial review of petitioner's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus (“Pet.”), ECF No. 1, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. The court grants petitioner's IFP application and, for the reasons discussed below, it dismisses this case without prejudice.
Petitioner is a state inmate who is currently civilly committed to Augusta State Medical Prison, located in Grovetown, Georgia. See Pet. at 1. He states that he was convicted and sentenced in DeKalb County Superior Court, also located in Georgia. See id. He challenges that conviction and sentence, alleging myriad constitutional violations, occurring at trial, appeal, and during his state post-conviction proceedings. See id. at 1-21. He demands that this court vacate his convictions, release him from custody, and award him damages. See id. at 22.
Federal review of state convictions is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 only after the exhaustion of available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). Although it appears that petitioner has made efforts in exhausting his state remedies, see Pet. at 2-18, “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 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 [the petitioner] and each of such district courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Here, petitioner was convicted and sentenced in Georgia and is in the custody of the Georgia Department of Corrections; therefore, if relief is available to him, he must file for such relief in the United States District Court for the District of Georgia.
Accordingly, the petition, and this matter, are dismissed without prejudice. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.