K wasi Seitu, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

District of Columbia et al., 

Defendants. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 

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 of plaintiffs pro se complaint and 

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiffs application 

and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) 

(requiring dismissal of a civil action upon a determination that the Court lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction). 

Plaintiff, a resident of the District of Columbia, sues the municipality, current and former 

judges of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and other individuals who allegedly 

retaliated against him beginning February 1997, after he challenged alleged unlawful acts of the 

District's "traffic enforcement agency." CompI. at 2 (page numbers supplied). Plaintiff claims 

that "his vehicle was arbitrarily seized ... by the District of Columbia Department of Public 

Works" and sold at public auction "although it pretended to still be in possession of the vehicle." 

Jd. In May 1997, plaintiff filed 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. Presumably plaintiff prevailed, but he refused to cash an 

$8,000 check the District issued to him because he questioned the Superior Court's jurisdiction 
to proceed to trial in light of the District's alleged default. Jd. at 6 ~ 22. Plaintiff further alleges 

that in 200 I or 2002, the District "surreptitiously revoked [his] driving privileges," id. ~ 23, that 

the Department of Motor Vehicles has refused "to produce the basis" for said revocation or to 

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 of which 

are listed as 'Felonies' when in fact the Plaintiff has been a defendant in only two misdemeanor 

cases," id. ~ 25. In addition, plaintiff alleges that he was recently subjected to an unlawful stop, 

search and seizure, and the filing of a false police report by Metropolitan Police Department 

Officer Scott Pinto, a named defendant. Jd. ~~ 26-27. Plaintiff alleges 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 plaintiff considers to be a malicious 

prosecution. Jd. ~~ 29-30. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages exceeding $15 million. 

The gravamen of the complaint is a challenge to the rulings of Superior Court judges. I 

Because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the decisions (or lack thereof) of 

another court, see 28 U.S.c. §§ 1331, 1332 (general jurisdictional 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 plaintiff may be asserting a violation of the due process clause, his 

own allegations establish that he received notice and the opportunity to 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 of the First Amendment right to access the courts. See 

Compl. at 2. 

2