Griffith v. White

District of Columbia

Griffith v. White

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedApril 10, 2013

DocketCivil Action No. 2013-0467

StatusPublished

This text of Griffith v. White (Griffith v. White) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Griffith v. White, (D.D.C. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FoR THE DISTRICT oF CoLUMBL/\ APR 1 0 2013 Cl k, . . ` costs :£,ft,,‘;'::;:,:;‘; 3:2;'.:'::;,,,3 Fu1ton Griffith, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. t

j 13 o4e7 Judge White Dist. Midd1e et al., ) ) Defendants. ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiffs pro se motion construed as a complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiff’ s application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action "at any time" it determines that subject matter jurisdiction is wanting).

Plaintiff, a prisoner incarcerated in Sarasota, Florida, has submitted a document captioned "Motion Court invoke inherited Power under [US] Constitution Chambers Supra, Neccessary [sic] Take Judicial Notice Law and Clairfy [sic] the Law for District Judge Covenghton assigned as Judge." Plaintiff essentially wants this Court to review the decisions of the United States District Court in Tampa, Florida, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Contrary to plaintiff s assertion that this Court has "inherited powers," Compl. at 1, this Court is not a reviewing court and, thus, lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the decisions of another district court and those of a higher federal court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332

(general jurisdictional provisions); Flemz`ng v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1

1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 1150 (1995) (citing District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415, 416 (1923)); see also Panko v. Rodak, 606 F.Zd 168, 171 n.6 (7th Cir. 1979), cert. deniea’, 444 U.S. 1081 (1980) ("It seems axiomatic that a lower court may not order the judges or officers of a

higher court to take an action."). A separate order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum

Opinion.

Date: April 3 ,2013 United»S ée;z’ljistr"ct Judge ( / j p/,Zz¢j J

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

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FoR THE DISTRICT oF CoLUMBL/\ APR 1 0 2013 Cl k, . . ` costs :£,ft,,‘;'::;:,:;‘; 3:2;'.:'::;,,,3 Fu1ton Griffith, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. t

j 13 o4e7 Judge White Dist. Midd1e et al., ) ) Defendants. ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiffs pro se motion construed as a complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiff’ s application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action "at any time" it determines that subject matter jurisdiction is wanting).

Plaintiff, a prisoner incarcerated in Sarasota, Florida, has submitted a document captioned "Motion Court invoke inherited Power under [US] Constitution Chambers Supra, Neccessary [sic] Take Judicial Notice Law and Clairfy [sic] the Law for District Judge Covenghton assigned as Judge." Plaintiff essentially wants this Court to review the decisions of the United States District Court in Tampa, Florida, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Contrary to plaintiff s assertion that this Court has "inherited powers," Compl. at 1, this Court is not a reviewing court and, thus, lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the decisions of another district court and those of a higher federal court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332

(general jurisdictional provisions); Flemz`ng v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1

1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 1150 (1995) (citing District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415, 416 (1923)); see also Panko v. Rodak, 606 F.Zd 168, 171 n.6 (7th Cir. 1979), cert. deniea’, 444 U.S. 1081 (1980) ("It seems axiomatic that a lower court may not order the judges or officers of a

higher court to take an action."). A separate order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum

Opinion.

Date: April 3 ,2013 United»S ée;z’ljistr"ct Judge ( / j p/,Zz¢j J

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Griffith v. White, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffith-v-white-dcd-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack