Opinion
Civil Action 22-1596 (UNA)
07-01-2022
TRISTAN FLORENDO-ONG, Plaintiff, v. IL-USA et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Tristan Florendo-Ong, appearing pro se, has filed a largely incomprehensible Complaint, Dkt. 1, and a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 2. The Court will grant the Motion and dismiss the case.
Florendo-Ong resides in Chicago, Illinois. He has named a long list of defendants, see Compl. at 2-6, and appears to seek review of his criminal convictions in Illinois courts, see id. at 8-9. “The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents lower federal courts from hearing cases that amount to the functional equivalent of an appeal from a state court.” Gray v. Poole, 275 F.3d 1113, 1119 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (citing District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923)); see United States v. Choi, 818 F.Supp.2d 79, 85 (D.D.C. 2011) (federal district courts “generally lack[] appellate jurisdiction over other judicial bodies, and cannot exercise appellate mandamus over other courts.”). Plaintiff's recourse lies, if at all, in the Illinois courts and ultimately in the U.S. Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1257; Stanton v. D.C. Court of Appeals, 127 F.3d 72, 75 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (Section 1257 “channels directly to the Supreme Court all federal review of judicial decisions of state . . . courts of last resort”).
Mr. Florendo-Ong also mentions the Civil Rights statutes, see Compl. at 1, 8, but he makes no cogent, supporting factual allegations and “federal courts are without power to entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if,” as here, “they are so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit [or] wholly insubstantial[.]” Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974) (cleaned up). In addition, Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Here, because Florendo-Ong's complaint lacks any discrete claim against any named defendant, it does not satisfy that standard. Consequently, this case will be dismissed by separate order.