Class v. Buchanan
This text of Class v. Buchanan (Class v. Buchanan) 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.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEB- 5 2013 Clerk, u.s. District & Bankruptcy Rodney Dale Class, ) Courts for the District of Columbia ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No.
Judge Beth A. Buchanan, ) ) 18 0150 ) Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, proceeding prose, has submitted a complaint and an application to proceed in
forma pauperis. Plaintiff purports to be a "Private Attorney General" representing "The People
ofthe United States of America." Compl. Caption. He sues United States Bankruptcy Judge
Beth A. Buchanan of the Southern District of Ohio for "gross judicial misconduct" he allegedly
observed when he "set [sic] in the courtroom as a Private Attorney General and as a real party of
interest to the case .... " Compl. at 3-4. Allegedly, plaintiff witnessed, among other wrongs,
"obstruction ofjustice [and the] denial of an affirmative defense .... " ld. at 4. The Court will
grant plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss this action for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action
"at any time" it determines that subject matter jurisdiction is wanting).
The Court finds jurisdiction wanting. Plaintiff asserts that this case is one "of judicial
abuse of power with willful intent to deprive to cause injury and harm and to deprive Mr. & Mrs.
Pertuset of Due Process, oflawful property owned and a business for lively hood." Compl. at 5.
Plaintiff has not established his legal standing to sue, which "is a defect in subject matter
1 jurisdiction," Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902, 906 (D.C. Cir. I987), and, as a lay person, he
cannot prosecute a claim on behalf of the Pertusets or any other individuals. See 28 U.S.C.
§ I654 ("In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases
personally or by counsel .... "); Georgiades v. Martin-Trigona, 729 F.2d 83I, 834 (D.C. Cir.
I984) (holding that a lay person cannot appear as counsel for others); Collins v. O'Brien, 208
F.2d 44,45 (D.C. Cir. I953) (per curiam) (same). In addition, the complaint consists ofmostly
conclusory verbiage and is "patently insubstantial, presenting no federal question suitable for
decision.'" Caldwell v. Kagan, 777 F. Supp. 2d I77, I78 (D.D.C. 20II) (quoting Tooley v.
Napolitano, 586 F.3d I 006, I 009 (D.C. Cir. 2009)). The law is clear that "federal courts are
without power to entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are 'so attenuated
and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid ofmerit.'" Hagans v. Lavine, 4I5 U.S. 528,536-7
(1974) (quoting Newburyport Water Co. v. Newburyport, I93 U.S. 561,579 (1904)). A separate
order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: January~ 2013
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Class v. Buchanan, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/class-v-buchanan-dcd-2013.