Court Opinion

ID: 9408390
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-12 17:03:01.473514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:43.612579
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BITAVIA CLEVELAND,                                )
                                                  )
               Plaintiff,                         )
                                                  )
       v.                                         )    Civil Action No. 23-01703 (UNA)
                                                  )
                                                  )
SHAWNEE COUNTY COURTHOUSE,                        )
                                                  )
                Defendant.                        )

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

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

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

(requiring the court to dismiss an action “at any time” it determines that subject-matter jurisdiction

is wanting).

       “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). The

subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331

and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a “federal question” is

presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

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).
         Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, has sued a county court in Topeka, Kansas. The

cryptically worded Complaint, ECF No. 1, neither presents a federal question nor demands any

relief. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks review of the referenced “Court Case,” id. at 1, this district

court lacks jurisdiction. 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)). Therefore, this case will be dismissed by separate

order.

                                                         TREVOR N. McFADDEN
  Date: July 11, 2023                                    United States District Judge

                                                   2