Adams v. Stevens

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedJanuary 14, 2009
DocketCivil Action No. 2009-0080
StatusPublished

This text of Adams v. Stevens (Adams v. Stevens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Adams v. Stevens, (D.D.C. 2009).

Opinion

FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JAN 14 2009 Clerk, U.S. District and Eric Adams, ) Bankrup'tcy Courts ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 09 0080 John Paul Stevens et al., ) ) Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on petitioners's pro se complaint and application to

proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 1

Petitioner is a prisoner at the United States Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado. He

petitions for a writ of habeas corpus against Justice John Paul Stevens based on alleged actions

taken by the Clerk of the Supreme Court. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review

the decisions of the Supreme Court. In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339 (D.C. Cir. 1992); Panko v.

Rodak, 606 F.2d 168,171 n.6 (7th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1081 (1980) ("It seems

axiomatic that a lower court may not order the judges or officers of a higher court to take an

action. "). Besides, a habeas petition is properly brought against one's immediate custodian in the

judicial district of the custodian. Stokes v. us. Parole Commission, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004); accord Rooney v. Secretary ofArmy, 405 F.3d 1029, 1032 (D.C. Cir. 2005)

("jurisdiction is proper only in the district in which the immediate, not the ultimate, custodian is

1 "If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, [it] must dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). located") (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, this case is dismissed.

A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

i trict Judge Date: December ~3 ,2008

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Stokes v. United States Parole Commission
374 F.3d 1235 (D.C. Circuit, 2004)
Rooney v. Secretary of the Army
405 F.3d 1029 (D.C. Circuit, 2005)
Panko v. Rodak
606 F.2d 168 (Seventh Circuit, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Adams v. Stevens, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-stevens-dcd-2009.