Opinion
Civil Action No. 18-298 (UNA)
04-11-2018
Ernest Joyner, Petitioner, v. United States of America, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a "Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Compel District of Columbia Court of Appeals to Rule on Petitioner's Motion Requesting Disclosure of Records/Information." The Court will grant the application and will dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring dismissal of an action "at any time" the Court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction).
Petitioner has invoked 28 U.S.C. § 1361, but "§ 1361 is only a source of jurisdiction for district courts to exercise writs of mandamus to employees of the Executive branch, United States v. Choi, 818 F. Supp. 2d 79, 84 (D.D.C. 2011) (emphasis in original), which the D.C. Court of Appeals is not. Apart from that, a district court may issue a writ of mandamus under the All Writs Act, but only when "necessary and appropriate in aid of [its] respective jurisdiction[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Federal district courts, such as this, are not reviewing courts, "generally lack[] appellate jurisdiction over other judicial bodies, and cannot exercise appellate mandamus over other courts." Choi, 818 F. Supp. 2d at 85 (citing Lewis v. Green, 629 F. Supp. 546, 553 (D.D.C.1986)). Accordingly, this case will be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. Date: April 11, 2018
/s/_________
United States District Judge