UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

__________________________________

)

MICHAL SWIATKOWSKI and )

LIDIA SWIATKOWSKI, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 15-267 (RMC)

)

BANK OF AMERICA, CORP., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

_________________________________ )

OPINION

Plaintiffs, Michal and Lidia Swiatkowski are proceeding pro se in this matter. 

They seek to enjoin or void state court foreclosure proceedings against their real property located 

at 7 Park Lane Pl., Massapequa, New York. The following Banks are the Defendants in this 

case: Bank of America, Corp.; Citibank, N.A.; Citimortgage, Inc.; Citicorp, Inc.; and Citigroup, 

Inc. While the Complaint is somewhat garbled, Plaintiffs allege that: (1) a judgment of 

foreclosure was issued by a New York State Court after the Banks “made a fake Foreclosure 

Note”; (2) that they were “brutally thrown out of their own house”; (3) that the Banks “used 

extremely dangerous conspiracies to steal more than one/third of a million from the Plaintiffs’ 

mortgage account”; and (4) that Bank of America is selling their house. Compl. [Dkt. 1] at 2-4. 

They further claim that the Banks “perpetrated a fraud upon the lower court, federal court, 

appellate division court, bankruptcy court, and federal court in New York.” See id. at 6. 

Attached to the Complaint are hundreds of pages of unidentified and partial documents from 

1
suits involving the foreclosure and Plaintiffs’ multiple bankruptcy petitions. Plaintiffs ask this 

Court to “reverse the judgment entered.”1 See id. at 38.

The Banks obtained a judgment of foreclosure and sale against the 7 Park Lane 

property on October 13, 2005, and Plaintiffs filed numerous successive bankruptcy petitions 

staying the foreclosure proceedings. See Citibank, N.A. v. Swiatkowski, 98 A.D.3d 555 (N.Y. 

App. Div. 2012). The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has noted that the 

Swiatkowskis “ha[ve] a history of litigation involving duplicative lawsuits.” Swiatkowski v. 

CitiMortgage, Inc., No. 10-CV-6024 JFB, 2011 WL 4369520, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2011)

(citing Swiatkowski v. Citibank, 745 F. Supp. 2d 150, 175 (E.D.N.Y. 2010), aff’d, 478 F. App’x 

704 (2d Cir. 2012). As of September 2011, the Swiatkowskis had filed eight bankruptcy 

petitions and multiple federal lawsuits, all in an attempt to raise claims in federal court relating to 

the 2005 foreclosure judgment and to delay the foreclosure of the 7 Park Lane Place property. 

Swiatkowski, 2011 WL 4369520, at *1. Thus far, Plaintiffs attempts have been unsuccessful.

In 2011, Plaintiffs were served with a petition for eviction. A trial was held in 

Nassau County District Court, and a judgment of possession was entered in favor of the Banks

on October 13, 2011. See Citibank, N.A. v. Swiatkowski, Civ. No. 12-0196 (JFB) at *2 

(E.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2012).

2

 The Swiatkowskis removed the case to the Eastern District of New 

York, but the case was remanded for lack of jurisdiction. Id. at *7. In remanding, the Eastern 

District of New York relied on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which provides that federal district 

courts lack authority to collaterally review state court judgments, see Rooker v. Fidelity Trust 

1 Plaintiffs do not specify the court or the judgment for which they seek reversal.

2 A copy of this unpublished slip opinion is attached to the Complaint as part of Exhibit W.

2

 
Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 

(1983). Id. at 6-7.

Before proceeding with this case, the Court must determine whether it has subject 

matter jurisdiction. 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 complaint can be dismissed 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, an 

dismissal for lack of jurisdiction be rendered sua sponte at any time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3);

Jerez v. Republic of Cuba, 777 F. Supp. 2d 6, 15 (D.D.C. 2011).

When determining whether a case should be dismissed 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 not 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 subject 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).

3
Plaintiffs seek a “reversal” of the New York State Court judgment of foreclosure

and sale. This Court lacks jurisdiction to do so. This Court is not a reviewing court and it lacks 

jurisdiction to compel another court to act. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332 (general jurisdictional 

provisions). Further, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, this federal district Court lacks authority 

to collaterally review the state court judgment. See Fleming v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 

172 (D.D.C. 1994). To the extent the matter is still pending in New York State Court, this Court 

is restrained from interfering. See 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 on 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 judicial 

proceedings.”). In addition, this Court has no authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the

state court to perform a judicial act. 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, the Complaint [Dkt. 1] will be dismissed for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. A memorializing Order accompanies this Opinion. 

Date: February 26, 2015 /s/ 

ROSEMARY M. COLLYER

United States District Judge

4