Cheeseman v. U.S. District Court District of Oregon

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: December 2, 2013
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2013-1898
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED

DEC " 2 2013 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT cClerk, U.S. Dlstrlct& Bankruptcy FoR THE DISTRICT oF COLUMBIA °""S'°'"'° D'Sf"¢fvf Columbia

Robert Cheeseman, ) ) Petitioner, ) )

v. § civil A¢ri@n No. /_?- U.S. District Court District of Oregon et al., ) ) Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This action is before the Court on its initial review of petitioner’s pro se "Petition to Declare Judgments Void ab Inito" and his application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. l2(h)(3) (requiring dismissal of an action "at any time" the Court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction).

Petitioner is a resident of Bandon, Oregon, who wants this Court to declare void the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeal for the Ninth and District of Columbia Circuits, the United States District Courts for the District of Oregon and the District of Columbia, and the Circuit Court of Oregon for D0uglas County. This Court is not a reviewing court and, thus, lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the decisions of another district court, a higher federal court, and, as a general rule applicable here, a state court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ l33l, 1332 (general jurisdictional provisions); Fleming v. United States, 847 F. Supp. l70, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), cert, denied 5l3 U.S. 1150 (l995) (citing District ofColumbia

Court ofAppeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Rooker v. Fia’elily Trusl Co., 263 U.S.

413, 415, 416 (1923)); see also 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."). Hence, this case will be dismissed with prejudice.

A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

/.\_ _}<

ar v` , Date: November , 2013 United States District Jud e