Opinion
Case: 1:15-cv-00175
01-30-2015
Assigned To : Unassigned
Assign. Date : 2/4/2015
Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil
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 with prejudice.
Plaintiff alleges that he has sustained "traumatic physical injuries including traumatic brain damage which compromise and impede various aspects of his life," rendering him "a disabled person." Compl. ¶ 24. He further claims that after he received a judgment as a plaintiff in a civil action in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, see id. ¶ 10, the Superior Court allegedly "took possession of the judgment proceeds" in the amount of $1,367,012.37, id. ¶ 12, and has not released these funds to him, see generally id. ¶¶ 11-20. It appears that plaintiff now is representing himself in the Superior Court, see id. ¶ 34(a)(iv), and generally complains that the court has denied him reasonable accommodations, for example, by denying his request for additional time to respond to former counsel's motion to withdraw from its representation of plaintiff, see id. ¶¶ 32-34. In addition, plaintiff alleges that the District of Columbia courts generally have mishandled the judgment funds, see id. ¶¶ 37-39, and have converted or stolen the proceeds, id. ¶¶ 43-44.
In essence, plaintiff asks this Court to review the rulings of the District of Columbia courts. Because this "federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review judicial decisions by . . . District of Columbia courts," Richardson v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 83 F.3d 1513, 1514 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (citing District of Columbia v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983) and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923)), the complaint will be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. DATE: January 30, 2015
/s/_________
United States District Judge