Johnson v. Chun

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: December 2, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-2806
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

INGRID JOHNSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-02806 (UNA) v. ) ) JOHN CHUN, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its review of Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint (“Compl.”),

ECF No. 1, and Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF No. 2. The

Court grants Plaintiff’s IFP application, and for the reasons explained below, it dismisses this case

without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Plaintiff, a resident of Texas, sues the Chief Court Deputy, Chief Judge, and a District

Judge––all from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington––and another

District Judge from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. See Compl. at 1–3;

Compl. Memorandum (“Compl. Memo”), ECF No. 1-1, at 1. She disagrees with the determination

of the Northern District of Texas to transfer her case to the Western District of Washington and

further challenges the Western District of Washington’s purported failure to “escalate” her case,

which she contends involves matters of national security. See Compl. at 5–6; Compl. Memo at 3–

5. She demands that this Court to “reverse and nullify” the transfer order and declare it

unconstitutional, and to also direct the “escalation” of her case. See Compl. at 6; Compl. Memo at

5–6.

This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review or alter any of the decisions or actions

of another federal district court, or to exert jurisdiction over its judges. See In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339 (D.C. Cir. 1992); Prentice v. U.S. Dist. Court for Eastern Dist. of Michigan, Southern Div.,

307 F. App’x. 460 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 29, 2008) (per curiam) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514

U.S. 300, 313 (1995)); see also Panko v. Rodak, 606 F. 2d 168, 171 n.6 (7th Cir. 1979) (finding it

“axiomatic” that a federal court may review the actions of judges or officers of another federal

court); United States v. Choi, 818 F. Supp. 2d 79, 85 (D.D.C. 2011) (stating that federal district

courts “generally lack[] appellate jurisdiction over other judicial bodies, and cannot exercise

appellate mandamus over other courts”) (citing Lewis v. Green, 629 F. Supp. 546, 553 (D.D.C.

1986)).

Accordingly, this matter is dismissed without prejudice. A separate Order accompanies

this Memorandum Opinion.

TREVOR N. McFADDEN Date: December 1, 2025 United States District Judge