Hill v. Franklin County Court of Common Pleas General Division

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: April 13, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-3326
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ANTHONY HILL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-3326 (UNA) ) FRANKLIN COUNTY COURT OF, ) COMMON PLEAS, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

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 grants the application,

dismisses the complaint and this civil action without prejudice, and denies Plaintiff’s pending

motions, ECF Nos. 5–6, without prejudice as moot.

It appears that Plaintiff is litigating a matter in the Franklin County Court of Common

Pleas. According to the complaint, the presiding judges closed that case “without adjudication to

shield [defendants] from liability.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 1. Among other relief, Plaintiff demands a “Writ

of Mandamus compelling Franklin County Court to case fraud, enter a final order, and transmit

the full record for federal review.” Id. at 3 (page number designated by CM/ECF). The court

cannot do this.

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) (explaining 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)

1 (stating that district courts “generally lack[] appellate jurisdiction over other judicial bodies, and

cannot exercise appellate mandamus over other courts”).

Because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the complaint and this civil action must

be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

/s/ AMIR H. ALI United States District Judge DATE: April 13, 2026