Opinion
Civil Action No. 17-1123 (UNA)
06-23-2017
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se complaint. The Court grants the application and dismisses the complaint.
It appears that the plaintiff was issued a citation for driving under the influence on January 17, 2017, and was directed to appear in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on February 1, 2017. Compl. ¶ 7. "The bottom of the citation had a monetary amount marked-off ($200)," id. ¶ 8, and this is an amount that the plaintiff cannot pay, id. ¶ 10. The plaintiff alleges that the judge ordered him to attend "competency group meetings[] to see if [he is] competent 'to be prosecuted' at the 'jury trial' level." Id. ¶ 13. The plaintiff asks whether this "is . . . this a criminal or civil case," id. at 1, and whether "this is a 'felony' or 'misdemeanor' act that was committed[,] id. at 2. He does not demand any particular relief, however, and it is unclear what he wants this Court to do.
If the plaintiff seeks review of Magistrate Judge Matini's rulings, no such relief is available here. This Court is without authority to review or reverse a Superior Court judge's rulings, and ordinarily does not interfere with pending Superior Court matters. See Richardson v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 83 F.3d 1513, 1514 (D.C. Cir. 1996) ("[F]ederal district courts lack jurisdiction to review judicial decisions by state and District of Columbia courts."); Moorman v. U.S. Bank, NA, No. 10-CV-1219, 2010 WL 2884661, at *1 (D.D.C. July 10, 2010) ("This court does not have jurisdiction to review of orders issued by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, and, in the interests of comity, will not intervene in a case pending before the Superior Court."). Therefore, the Court will dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. DATE: June 23, 2017
/s/_________
United States District Judge