Clark-Bey v. State of Maryland

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedFebruary 5, 2013
DocketCivil Action No. 2013-0148
StatusPublished

This text of Clark-Bey v. State of Maryland (Clark-Bey v. State of Maryland) 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
Clark-Bey v. State of Maryland, (D.D.C. 2013).

Opinion

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT CoURT FEB ~ 5 2013 FoR THE DISTRICT oF CoLUMBIA C<¢;),:r,; rst_hg,;tirs'.;ti§ gfag‘;r|gmg¥a Amun Ra Clark Bey, ) Petitioner, j v. j civil A@rion No. 13 ()148 State of Maryland et al ., j Respondents. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of the pro se petition for a writ of mandamus and application to proceed in forma pauperis The Court will grant petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. l2(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action "at any time" it determines that subject matter jurisdiction is wanting).

Petitioner, a Maryland resident, seeks a writ to compel Chief Judge Ben C. Clybum of the District Court of Maryland, "and/or Sheila R. Tillerson Adams," Administrative Judge of Prince George’s County, Maryland, Circuit Court, to enforce a default judgment allegedly "filed on October 3 l, 2012 as the Writ of Discovery submitted was not honored." Pet. at 2. Jurisdiction is wanting because the extraordinary writ of mandamus is available to compel an "officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to plaintiff," 28 U.S.C. § l36l, not the state actors listed in the instant petition. In addition, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the decisions of a state court and, therefore, carmot compel

enforcement of a state court judgment. See 28 U.SN.C. §§ 1331, 1332 (general jurisdictional 1

provisions); Flerning v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 1150 (1995) (citing District of Coliulrnbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482

(1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415, 416 (1923)). A separate order of

Y”ZM¢/e/M§/e»

Date: January , 2013 United States/District Judg;

dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

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

Related

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.
263 U.S. 413 (Supreme Court, 1924)
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman
460 U.S. 462 (Supreme Court, 1983)
Fleming v. United States
847 F. Supp. 170 (District of Columbia, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Clark-Bey v. State of Maryland, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-bey-v-state-of-maryland-dcd-2013.