Court Opinion

ID: 9895669
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-08 15:01:11.810357+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:23.117686
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BERNICE RINK,                                 )
                                              )
               Plaintiff,                     )
                                              )
       v.                                     )      Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-02880 (UNA)
                                              )
                                              )
JUDGE MCCABE, et al.,                         )
                                              )
                Defendants.                   )

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

       This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF

No. 2, and his pro se complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1. The Court grants the application and, for

the reasons discussed below, dismisses the complaint in its entirety for want of subject matter

jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

       Plaintiff, a resident of the District of Columbia, sues the D.C. Superior Court judge who

oversaw certain probate matters, see Estate of Henry Marrow v. Rink, No. 2023 LIT 000005 (D.C.

Super. Ct.); In Re Marrow, Henry, No. 2021 ADM 784 (D.C. Super. Ct.), as well as attorney

Matthew Hertz, who served as the court-appointed personal representative of the estate of Henry

Marrow in those matters. Apparently, Plaintiff, who holds herself out as the surviving domestic

partner of Mr. Marrow, attempted unsuccessfully to intervene and remove Mr. Hertz as personal

representative, and to oppose the objectives of the probate proceedings. Ultimately, the Superior

Court granted the estate of Henry Marrow (1) judgment on the pleadings; (2) the partition of a

parcel of real property, located in the District; (3) the appointment of a trustee to sell that real

property; and (4) the eviction of the occupants of that property, including Plaintiff. Plaintiff now

asks this Court to review the actions of the Superior Court and to reverse its determinations.
       This Court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims. A federal

district court may not review judicial decisions by D.C. courts. See, e.g., Richardson v. D.C. Ct.

of Appeals, 83 F.3d 1513, 1514 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (describing Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also

Chen v. Raz, 172 F.3d 918 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of complaint seeking

review of Superior Court’s decision in probate matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). To

whatever extent Plaintiff seeks to challenge the Superior Court’s determinations, she must pursue

such relief in the D.C. Court of Appeals. See D.C. Super. Ct. Probate Div. R. 8. Further, Plaintiff’s

complaint does not cite any basis for federal jurisdiction: it does not establish diversity of

citizenship among the parties, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or cite any basis in federal law for granting

Plaintiff relief, see id. § 1331. The Court also notes that federal courts cannot exercise subject

matter jurisdiction over probate actions, as such matters generally fall within the purview of state

courts. See Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 309 (2006).

       For these reasons, this action is dismissed without prejudice for want of jurisdiction. A

separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

Date: November 7, 2023
                                                              /s/_________________________
                                                                ANA C. REYES
                                                                United States District Judge