Kwasi Seitu, Plaintiff,
v. District ofColumbia et al., Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil ActionNo.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED JUL 31 2009**C'~~k,** 

## u.s. District and uankruptcy Courts 

# 09 1456

This matter is before the Court on its initial review ofplaintiffs pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed informapauperis. The Court will grant plaintiffs application and dismiss the complaint for lack ofsubject matterjurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring dismissal ofa civil action upon a determination that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction). Plaintiff, a resident ofthe District ofColumbia, sues the municipality, current and former judges ofthe Superior Court ofthe District ofColumbia and other individuals who allegedly retaliated against him beginning February 1997, after he challenged alleged unlawful acts ofthe District's "traffic enforcement agency." CompI. at 2 (page numbers supplied). Plaintiffclaims that "his vehicle was arbitrarily seized
... by the District ofColumbiaDepartment ofPublic Works" and sold at public auction "although it pretended to still be in possession ofthe vehicle." Jd. In May 1997, plaintifffiled a damages lawsuit in D.C. Superior Court based on the foregoing conduct and "was forced into a purported 'trial'," when that court allegedly refused to enter a default against the District. Jd. at 3,5. Presumablyplaintiffprevailed, but he refused to cash an $8,000 check the District issued to him because he questioned the Superior Court'sjurisdictionto proceed to trial in light ofthe District's alleged default. Jd. at 6**~** 22. Plaintifffurther alleges that in 200I or 2002, the District "surreptitiouslyrevoked [his] driving privileges," id.**~** 23, that the Department ofMotor Vehicles has refused "to produce the basis" for said revocation orto restore his driving privileges, id.**~** 24, and that the Superior Court "has published and made available on-line, a record listing [him] as a 'Criminal' defendant in seven cases, two ofwhich
are listed as 'Felonies' when in fact the Plaintiffhas been a defendant in only two misdemeanor cases," id.**~** 25. In addition, plaintiffalleges that he was recently subjected to an unlawful stop, search and seizure, and the filing ofa false police report by Metropolitan Police Department Officer Scott Pinto, a named defendant. Jd.**~~** 26-27. Plaintiffalleges that he has appeared three times-the latest on July 7, 2009-- before Superior Court Judge Jennifer Anderson, another named defendant who apparently has refused to dismiss the case plaintiffconsiders to be a malicious prosecution. Jd.**~~** 29-30. Plaintiffseeks monetary damages exceeding $15 million. The gravamen ofthe complaint is a challenge to the rulings ofSuperior Courtjudges. I Because this Court lacks subject matterjurisdictionto review the decisions (or lack thereof) of another court, see 28 U.S.c. §§ 1331, 1332 (generaljurisdictional provisions); Fleming v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 1150 (1995), the complaint will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: July;JL, 2009

I To the extent that plaintiffmay be asserting a violation ofthe due process clause, his own allegations establish that he received notice and the opportunityto be heard in the Superior Court, which is all the process the Constitution requires. See Yates v. District a/Columbia, 324 F.3d 724, 726 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893,47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976)). Similarly, plaintiffs dissatisfaction with the Superior Court proceedings belies his claim predicated on the denial ofthe First Amendment right to access the courts. See Compl. at 2. 2