Opinion
Civil Action No. 13-1165 (UNA)
11-13-2013
DAUD A. HOLIDAY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
As drafted, plaintiff's original complaint failed to comply with the notice pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has submitted a document titled "Affidavit Complaint," which the Court construes as an Amended Complaint and a motion for leave to file it.
Plaintiff currently is detained at the D.C. Jail. He appears to allege that the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals were negligent by refusing to grant him a hearing in the criminal case against him. He demands an order to "grant [him a] hearing on appeal . . . or release [him] from confinement in the interest of justice with monetary accommodation." Aff. Compl. at 2 (page number designated by the Court).
Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint is denied because the proposed amendment itself is subject to dismissal as futile. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). This Court has no jurisdiction to review or reverse the decisions of, or otherwise direct the activities of, the District of Columbia courts. See, e.g., Mooreman v. U.S. Bank, N.A., No. 10-1219, 2010 WL 2884661, at *1 (D.D.C. July 10, 2010); Fleming v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), aff'd, 1994 WL 474995 (D.C. Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1150 (1995); see also 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." ) (citing District of Columbia v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983) and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923)).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that leave to file the "Affidavit Complaint" is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
______________________
United States District Judge