1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

__________________________________ ) PAMELA LOPES , ) ) Plaintiff, ) )
v. ) Civil Action No. 14

- 1 604 (RMC) ) OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC & ) WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY , ) ) Defendant s . )

_________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Pamela Lopes , proceeding pro se , filed a Complaint on September 19 , 2014, against Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC and Wilmington Trust Company

. While the Complaint purports to assert a quiet title action, in fact Ms. Lopes s eek s to bar pending

foreclosure proceedings regarding her real property located at 1914 C Street, N.E., Washington,

D.C. 20002. See Compl. [Dkt. 1] at 2, 5 (“The Trust is not entitled to enforce Plaintiff’s note ”);

id . at 12 (“A null security agreement is unenfor ceable for foreclosure . . . .”); id . at 13

- 14 (Plaintiff seeks a judgment “ordering the District of Columbia Office of the City Register to convey the pro perty [located at 1914 C Street NE] to Plaintiff” and “barring and forever estopping Defendants, and each of them, from claiming any estate, right, title or interest in said property.”) Wilmington Trust Company filed a foreclosure action against Plaintiff ’s property in

the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on August 14, 2014. See Wilmington Trust
Company v. Lopes , 2014 CA 005207 R(RP) (D.C. Superior Ct.) (filed Aug. 14, 2014)

. Because

th is Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, th e case will be dismissed.2 Even though pro se complaints are construed liberally, see Haines v. Kerner , 404
U.S. 519, 520 (1972) and United States v. Byfield, 391 F.3d 277, 281 (D.C. Cir. 2004), this Court must have jurisdiction in order to adjudicate the claim. A complai nt can be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g. , Jerez v. Republic of Cuba , 777 F. Supp. 2d 6, 15 (D.D.C. 2011). When determining whether a case

should be dismiss ed for lack of jurisdiction, a court reviews the complaint liberally, granting the plaintiff the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged. Barr v. Clinton , 370 F. 3d 1196, 1199 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Nevertheless, “the Court need n ot accept factual inferences drawn by plaintiffs if those inferences are not supported by facts alleged in the complaint, nor must the Court accept plaintiff’s legal conclusions.” Speelman v. United States , 461 F. Supp. 2d 71, 73 (D.D.C. 2006). Further, in deciding whether it has jurisdiction, a court may consider materials outside the pleadings. Settles v. U.S. Parole Comm’n , 429 F.3d 1098, 1107 (D.C. Cir. 2005). No action of the parties can confer subj ect matter jurisdiction on a federal court because subject matter jurisdiction is an Article III and statutory requirement. Akinseye v. Dist. of Columbia , 339 F.3d 970, 971 (D.C. Cir. 2003). The party claiming subject matter jurisdiction bears the burden of demonstrating that such jurisdiction exists. Khadr v.

United States , 529 F.3d 1112, 1115 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

This Court declines to interfere or otherwise involve i tself in matters before the Superior C ourt. S ee Younger v. Harris , 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971) (“[T]he normal thing to do when federal courts are asked to enjoin pending proceedings in state courts is not to issue such injunctions.”); see also District Properties Associates v. District of Columbia , 743 F.2d 21, 27
(D.C. Cir. 1984) (“[B]ased o n principles of equity . . . the doctrine of Younger v. Harris , 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and its progeny restrains federal courts from interfering in ongoing state judicial3 proceedings.”). Further, this Court is not a reviewing court and lacks jurisdiction to compel

another court to act. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332 (general jurisdictional provisions); see also Fleming v. United States , 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994) (under the Rooker

- Feldman doctrine, federal district courts lack authority to collaterall y review state court judgments ) ( citing Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) ; District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) ). In addition, this Court has no authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the Superior Court to perform a judicial act or to compel the D.C. Office of the City Register to convey property, as Plaintiff requests . The Court’ s mandamus authority extends only to “ officer[s] or employee[s] of the United States or any agency thereof . . .

. ” 28
U.S.C. § 1361. Accordingly, this case will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction , and the pending motion to dismiss will be denied as moot. A memorializing Order a ccompanies

this Memorandum Opinion.

D ate : February 5 , 2015 /s/ ROSEMARY M. COLLYER United States District Judge