Colvin v. Edelman

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: November 6, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-2484
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DEON D. COLVIN,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02484 (UNA)

TODD E. EDELMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its review of Plaintiff’s pro se Amended Complaint

(“Am. Compl.”), ECF No. 4, and his Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”),

ECF No. 2. The Court grants Plaintiff’s IFP Application, and for the reasons explained below, it

dismisses this case without prejudice.

Plaintiff, a resident of the District, sues two associate judges of the D.C. Superior Court,

both of whom presided over a case that Plaintiff filed in that court, see Colvin v. 743 Fairmont St.

NW LLC, No. 2019-CA-008113-B (“Colvin I”) (D.C. Super. Ct. filed Dec. 11, 2019),1 which was

dismissed on July 24, 2025, see id. at Dkt., Order Dismissing Case (July 24, 2025); see also Am.

Compl. at 1–4. Plaintiff challenges several determinations made by the court in Colvin I, largely

related to the treatment of Plaintiff’s motions and his other requests for relief, and ultimately,

Colvin I’s dismissal. See Compl. at 3–25. He alleges that these judicial acts violated his

1 A court may take judicial notice of the docket and facts on the public record in other court proceedings. See Covad Commc’ns Co. v. Bell Atl. Corp., 407 F.3d 1220, 1222 (D.C. Cir. 2005). “constitutional and statutory rights,” see id. at 2, and he seeks an injunction from this Court

condemning and reversing them, see id. at 3–25.

Plaintiff has failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Federal courts are generally prohibited from reviewing determinations made by local District of

Columbia courts. See Richardson v. D.C. Ct. of Appeals, 83 F.3d 1513, 1514 (D.C. Cir. 1996)

(citing D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983) and Rooker v. Fidelity Tr. Co.,

263 U.S. 413, 415 (1923)). The Rooker-Feldman abstention doctrine “bars lower federal courts

from considering not only issues raised and decided in the state courts, but also issues that are

inextricably intertwined with the issues that were before the state court.” Araya v. Bayly, 875 F.

Supp. 2d 1, 3 (D.D.C. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), aff’d, No. 12-7069,

2013 WL 500819 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 18, 2013). In addition, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks relief

against Defendants in their personal capacities, such claims are “barred under the doctrine of

absolute judicial immunity and thus must be dismissed.” Smith v. Scalia, 44 F. Supp. 3d 28, 40

(D.D.C. 2014), aff’d, No. 14-5180, 2015 WL 13710107 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 14, 2015).

For these reasons, the case is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw,

ECF No. 6, the Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 5, filed improperly without leave on

October 7, 2025, is hereby granted, and the Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 5, is hereby

formally withdrawn. Plaintiff’s subsequent Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended

Complaint, ECF No. 8, is hereby denied because the proposed second amended complaint attached

fails to correct any of the existing deficiencies in his Amended Complaint. Finally, Plaintiff’s

Motion to Extend Time to Serve, ECF No. 6, is denied as moot. A separate Order accompanies

this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: November 6, 2025 CARL J. NICHOLS United States District Judge