Dorsey v. Superior Court for the District of Columbia

709 F. App'x 22
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedDecember 20, 2017
DocketNo. 17-7060
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 709 F. App'x 22 (Dorsey v. Superior Court for the District of Columbia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dorsey v. Superior Court for the District of Columbia, 709 F. App'x 22 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

Opinion

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing and the motion to appoint counsel, it is

ORDERED that the motion to appoint counsel be denied. In civil cases, appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. It is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order, filed March 22, 2017, be affirmed. The district court correctly dismissed appellant’s claim against the District of Columbia Superior Court because “federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review judicial decisions by state and District of Columbia courts.” Richardson v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 83 F.3d 1513, 1514 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Dismissal of the claim against appellee Lankford was also proper. The district courts of the United States are “courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). The district courts have jurisdiction in “federal question” cases, i.e., civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and in “diversity” cases, Le., civil actions between citizens of different states or between United States citizens and foreign citizens or foreign states, provided the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In this case, appellant failed to plead facts to establish federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

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

Related

George v. US Bank
District of Columbia, 2025
Wade v. Smith
District of Columbia, 2024
Holton v. McClean
District of Columbia, 2023

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
709 F. App'x 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dorsey-v-superior-court-for-the-district-of-columbia-cadc-2017.