Colvin v. Tunnage

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: August 11, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-2366
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

DEON D. COLVIN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-2366 (UNA) ) DONALD W. TUNNAGE, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on consideration of Plaintiff’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) and his pro se complaint (ECF No. 1). The Court GRANTS the

application and, for the reasons discussed below, DISMISSES the complaint and this civil action

without prejudice.

Defendant Donald W. Tunnage, an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District

of Columbia, currently presides over a civil action Plaintiff commenced in that court in

December 2019. See Compl. ¶¶ 4-6. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, see id. ¶ 5, and because he

has “not registered for e-service,” id. ¶ 32, he receives notices from the Superior Court by mail,

see id. ¶ 33.

Judge Tunnage held a motions hearing on April 9, 2025, during which he scheduled a

pretrial conference for June 11, 2025. See id. ¶ 7. Plaintiff filed motions to continue the pretrial

conference, see id. ¶¶ 9-11, which Judge Tunnage denied by Order entered on June 3, 2025, id. ¶

12. The Order waived the requirement under Superior Court Civil Rule 16 that the parties file a

joint pretrial statement and instead directed the parties to file separate pretrial statements by June

4, 2025. See id. ¶¶ 31, 42. Plaintiff did not receive his copy of the Order until after his deadline

1 had passed. See id. ¶ 34. Meanwhile, the defendant, 743 Fairmont Street NW LLC, filed its

pretrial statement on June 4, 2025, id. ¶ 13, and amended its statement on July 2, 2025, id. ¶ 19.

The June 11, 2025, pretrial conference proceeded, see id. ¶ 14, at which time Judge

Tunnage ordered Plaintiff to file his pretrial statement by June 25, 2025, id. Plaintiff filed

motions to vacate both the June 3, 2025, and June 11, 2025 Orders, see id. ¶¶ 15-17, as well as a

motion for an extension of time to file his pretrial statement, see id. ¶ 18. Judge Tunnage issued

an Order on July 16, 2025, which, among other things, set July 21, 2025, as the new deadline for

Plaintiff’s pretrial statement and warned Plaintiff that his failure to file his pretrial statement

would result in dismissal of the case. See id. ¶ 20.

In the instant civil action, Plaintiff alleges violations of his Fifth Amendment right to due

process when, for example, Plaintiff did not receive the June 3, 2025, and July 16, 2025 Orders

in time to meet his filing deadlines, see id. ¶¶ 35-38, 84-88, and when Judge Tunnage waived

Rule 16 without affording Plaintiff an opportunity to object, see, e.g., id. ¶¶ 43-45, and to benefit

from the rule’s requirements, see, e.g., id. ¶¶ 56-60, 70-71. He directly challenges Judge

Tunnage’s June 3, 2025, June 11, 2025, and July 16, 2025 Orders and, essentially, asks this

Court to vacate them. See id. ¶¶ 39, 46, 61, 66, 72, 77, 89, 95, 100. This Court lacks jurisdiction

to do so. See Brown v. District of Columbia, No. 23-7129, 2024 WL 1693616, at *1 (D.C. Cir.

Apr. 18, 2024) (per curiam) (“The district court did not err by dismissing appellant’s complaint

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint sought judicial review of decisions

issued by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.”). “And because United States district

courts do not have authority to review or otherwise interfere with ongoing D.C. Superior Court

matters, when presented with a request to do so, the Court must dismiss the claim.” George v.

US Bank, No. 24-cv-1598, 2025 WL 973495, at *2 (D.D.C. Apr. 1, 2025) (citation and internal

2 quotation marks omitted), appeal docketed, No. 25-7041 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 4, 2025); Shafique v.

Equity Residential Mgmt. LLC, No. 24-cv-1253, 2024 WL 3566206, at *1 (D.D.C. July 24,

2024) (dismissing complaint “directly challeng[ing] the rulings of the Superior Court, each

unfavorable to [plaintiff], and, essentially, ask[ing] this Court to reverse them”), appeal

docketed, No. 24-7129 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 12, 2024); Rowland v. Superior Court Building B, No.

14-cv-450, 2014 WL 1321106, at *1 (D.D.C. Mar. 20, 2014) (“This Court has no authority to

review or reverse the decisions of a Superior Court judge, or to direct the activities of that

court.”).

An Order is issued separately.

DATE: August 11, 2025 /s/ JIA M. COBB United States District Judge