Court Opinion

ID: 9401369
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-12 21:01:22.565298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:52.417930
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ANTHONY BRAXTON,                               )
                                               )
               Plaintiff,                      )
                                               )
       v.                                      )       Civil Action No. 23-01004 (UNA)
                                               )
                                               )
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,                          )
                                               )
                Defendant.                     )

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

       This matter, filed pro se, is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint,

ECF No. 1, and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court will

grant the application and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

       “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized

by Constitution and statute,” and it is “presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction.”

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). A party

seeking relief in the district court must at least plead facts that bring the suit within the court’s

jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Failure to plead such facts warrants dismissal of the action.

       Plaintiff’s Complaint is based “on the actions and misconduct of the Superior Court of the

District of Columbia” during multiple court proceedings. Compl. at 1; see id. at 2-4. This federal

district court lacks jurisdiction to review another court’s decisions and order it to take any action.

See Gray v. Poole, 275 F.3d 1113, 1119 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (“The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents

lower federal courts from hearing cases that amount to the functional equivalent of an appeal from

a state court.”) (citing Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983);

Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923)); United States v. Choi, 818 F. Supp. 2d 79, 85
(D.D.C. 2011) (district courts “generally lack[] appellate jurisdiction over other judicial bodies,

and cannot exercise appellate mandamus over other courts.”) (citing Lewis v. Green, 629 F. Supp.

546, 553 (D.D.C. 1986)). Plaintiff’s recourse lies, if at all, in the D.C. Court of Appeals and the

U.S. Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1257 (“Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest

court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ

of certiorari[.]”). Therefore, this case will be dismissed by separate order.

                                                                       2023.06.12
                                                                       10:59:49 -04'00'
                                                      _____________________
                                                      TREVOR N. McFADDEN
Date: June 12, 2023                                   United States District Judge

                                                  2