Gompel v. State of Texas

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TONI VAN GOMPEL, :

:

Plaintiff, :

:

v. : Civil Action No. 25-1256 (UNA)

:

STATE OF TEXAS, :

:

Defendant. :

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and pro se complaint, ECF No. 1. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint and this civil action.

Plaintiff allegedly is “a sovereign living (wo)man flesh and blood,” Compl. at 2 and, therefore, “is only subject to the provisions of the Constitution and is not subject to the artificial laws, statutes, codes, rules, regulations of any lower, subordinate body of government that does not adhere to the Constitution,” id. She appears to be the defendant in a criminal case pending in a Texas court, see, e.g., id. at 2; see also id., Ex. (ECF No. 1-1), and she has challenged the court’s authority over her, see, e.g., id. at 2, 3. She asks this Court to discharge the Texas case and to overturn any related cases, among other relief. See id. at 4. This the Court cannot do.

As a general rule, a federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review the decisions of other courts. See Richardson v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 83 F.3d 1513, 1514 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (relying on District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983) and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415, 416 (1923), in concluding that “federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review judicial decisions by state and District of Columbia courts”); United States v. Choi, 818 F. Supp. 2d 79, 85 (D.D.C. 2011) (stating that

2

district courts “generally lack[] appellate jurisdiction over other judicial bodies, and cannot exercise appellate mandamus over other courts”). Because this is such a case, the Court will dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction.

A separate order will issue.

/s/

RANDOLPH D. MOSS

United States District Judge DATE: May 7, 2025