Court Opinion

ID: 9370024
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-10 17:00:42.110944+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:18.772033
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

RAJ K. PATEL,                                    )
                                                 )
                Plaintiff,                       )
                                                 )
        v.                                       )       Civil Action No. 22-3805 (UNA)
                                                 )
                                                 )
UNITED STATES et al.,                            )
                                                 )
                 Defendants.                     )

                                    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). In

addition, “federal courts are without power to entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction

if they are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit, wholly insubstantial,

[or] obviously frivolous[.]” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536–37 (1974). 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 resident of Indianapolis, Indiana, sues the United States, President Joe Biden,

the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and Senior Judge Loren A. Smith, and Department of Justice

                                                     1
Trial Attorney Robert R. Kiepura. See Compl. at 2-3. The prolix complaint, to the extent

intelligible, arises from an action Plaintiff brought against the United States for breach of contract.

See id. at 7-11; Patel v. United States, No. 2022-1131, 2022 WL 4956868, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Feb.

11, 2022), cert. denied, 214 L. Ed. 2d 112, 143 S. Ct. 281 (2022) (per curiam) (holding that “the

Court of Federal Claims correctly concluded that Mr. Patel’s allegations were baseless and that it

lacked jurisdiction over any of his claims”). Alleging constitutional deprivations, Plaintiff seeks

“a writ or rule nisi under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 to aid this District Court in its jurisdiction for possible

criminal or civil offenses committed by Defendants.” Compl. at 14. He wants this Court

“[e]specially [to] ask Defendants what evidence they need now.” Id.

        “A federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review decisions of other federal courts,”

Smalls v. United States, 471 F.3d 186, 192 (D.C. Cir. 2006), and it is axiomatic that a lower federal

court has no authority over an appellate court, In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C. Cir. 1992)

(per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Further, it is settled that claims

against a judicial defendant premised, as here, on the judge’s rulings are frivolous. See Caldwell

v. Kagan, 777 F. Supp. 2d 177, 179 (D.D.C. 2011) (finding “claims against the district and court

of appeals judges . . . patently frivolous because federal judges are absolutely immune from

lawsuits predicated, as here, for their official acts”) (citing Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 225

(1988); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 355–57 (1978); Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460

(D.C. Cir. 1993)); see also Fleming v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), cert.

denied, 513 U.S. 1150 (1995) (a complaints against judges who have “done nothing more than

their duty” is “a meritless action.”).

                                                  2
       Because no “allegation of other facts” could plausibly cure the foregoing defects, this case

will be dismissed with prejudice. Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (per

curiam) (cleaned up). A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

                                                     ___________/s/__________
                                                     RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
                                                     United States District Judge
DATE: February 10, 2023

                                                3