Dyson v. Bondi

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: February 10, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-4417
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STEFANNIE DYSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Civil Action No. 25 - 4417 (UNA)

PAM BONDI, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on consideration of Plaintiffs’ application to proceed in

forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and pro se complaint, ECF No. 1. The court will grant the application

to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction.

Plaintiff Stefannie Dyson is the subject of an order barring her from filing in the Northern

District of Illinois. See ECF No. 1, at 3, 6; 1 see also Executive Committee Order, In re Dyson,

No. 24-CV-11636 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 14, 2024). She has also filed another lawsuit in this district that

the court has already dismissed. ECF No. 4, Dyson v. Kendall et al., No. 25-CV-2299

(D.D.C. Aug. 31, 2025). Ms. Dyson alleges that, having been barred from proceeding in the

Northern District of Illinois, she filed a case in the District of Minnesota and paid the filing fee in

full, only to have the case be transferred to the Northern District of Illinois and then dismissed.

1 When citing ECF No. 1, the court uses the page numbers generated by CM/ECF, rather than any internal pagination. ECF No. 1, at 3.2 Ms. Dyson also expresses dissatisfaction with another case she filed in the

District of Minnesota in June 2025. See id. at 4.3

Plaintiff Mark Jones complains that a case he filed in the District of Minnesota was

dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) even though he is not a prisoner, and that the

judge in that case “falsely stated that subject-matter jurisdiction had been resolved in open court—

contrary to the record.” Id. at 4 (emphases removed).4

Plaintiffs allege that, due to the above-described actions, they “are now blackballed from

filing any claims in Illinois or Minnesota,” id. at 5, and are without access to the courts. They ask

this court to “[d]eclare unconstitutional” and “[v]acate” “all restricted-filer orders,” reinstate one

of their cases, order “immediate” review of their claims, and grant them CM/ECF access, among

other relief.

“A federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review decisions of other federal courts.”

Smalls v. United States, 471 F.3d 186, 192 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (citation omitted); see Nie v. Smith,

No. 22-CV-5326, 2023 WL 7537732, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 14, 2023) (per curiam) (“The district

court correctly concluded that it lacks jurisdiction to review the decisions of other federal courts.”);

Prentice v. U.S. Dist. Court for E. Dist. of Mi., S. Div., 307 F. App’x 460, 460 (D.C. Cir. 2008)

(per curiam) (“Because one district court has no jurisdiction to review the decision of another

2 See ECF No. 14, at 1, Dyson v. Ill. Dep’t of Children Family Servs., No. 25-CV-141 (D. Minn. Mar. 3, 2025) (dismissing certain claims as frivolous and transferring the remaining claims to the Northern District of Illinois under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)); ECF No. 26, Dyson v. Illinois Dep’t of Children Family Servs., No. 25-CV-2477 (N.D. Ill. June 11, 2025) (applying the barring order). 3 See ECF Nos. 23, 24, Dyson v. Bartolomei, No. 25-CV-2296 (D. Minn. Sep. 26, 2025) (dismissing case), appeal docketed, No. 25-3299 (8th Cir. Nov. 19, 2025). 4 See ECF No. 4, Jones v. Hennepin County Fourth Judicial District Court, No. 25-cv-0125 (D. Minn. Mar. 20, 2025), appeal dismissed, No. 25-2677 (8th Cir. Oct. 22, 2025).

2 district court, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia properly determined it lacked

jurisdiction to review action taken by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

(Southern Division).”); Jones v. U.S. Sup. Ct., No. 10-CV-0910, 2010 WL 2363678, at *1

(D.D.C. June 9, 2010) (“This court is not a reviewing court and cannot compel Supreme Court

justices or other Article III judges in this or other districts or circuits to act.”), aff’d sub nom. Jones

v. Sup. Ct. of U.S., 405 F. App’x 508 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (per curiam), aff’d, 563 U.S. 914 (2011).

Here, Plaintiffs ask this court to review the decisions of courts in the Northern District of Illinois

and the District of Minnesota. The court lacks jurisdiction over such requests and will accordingly

dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A separate order will issue.

LOREN L. ALIKHAN United States District Judge Date: February 9, 2026