Kapp v. State Department of Washington

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: November 17, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-2711
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BRANDON KAPP, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-02711 (UNA) ) ) STATE DEPARTMENT OF ) WASHINGTON et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a complaint and an application to proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP). For the following reasons, the Court grants the IFP application and dismisses the

complaint.

On July 11, 2025, Plaintiff, a resident of Ellensburg, Washington, filed suit in the U.S.

District Court for the Eastern District of Washington based on his pursuit of records under

Washington State’s Public Records Act. The Eastern District dismissed the action under the

Younger abstention doctrine in light of Plaintiff’s “parallel case in Yakima County Superior

Court[.]” Kapp v. McDaniel, No. 1:25-cv-03109-SAB, 2025 WL 2487783, at *2 (E.D. Wash.

Aug. 28, 2025) (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)). Here, Plaintiff sues “Washington

State agencies” and “local federal judges” he alleges “have engaged in a coordinated strategy to

suppress metadata, obstruct ADA-related evidence, retaliate against public records requesters, and

shield institutional misconduct through procedural dismissals.” Compl., ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff

includes “unnamed” judicial officers “for declaratory and injunctive purposes due to their role in enabling the systemic concealment through unjustified dismissals and denial of discovery.” Id. at

4 ¶ 12.

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction” possessing “only that power authorized

by Constitution and statute,” and it is “presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction.”

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). The

United States, U.S. agencies, and U.S. employees sued in their official capacities are immune from

suit save “clear congressional consent,” United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980), which

“must be unequivocally expressed in statutory text.” Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996)

(cleaned up). Federal judges sued, as here, for having “done nothing more than their duty,”

Fleming v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), “are part of the United States

government for the purposes of sovereign immunity.” Smith v. Scalia, 44 F. Supp. 3d 28, 38

(D.D.C. 2014) (collecting cases). Similarly, the Eleventh Amendment immunizes states from

lawsuits filed against them in federal court absent their consent to be sued or Congress’

“unequivocally expressed” intent to abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity. 1 Kimel v. Fla. Bd.

of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 72-73 (2000). A party seeking relief in the district court must plead facts

that bring the suit within the court’s jurisdiction, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), or suffer dismissal of the

case, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

1 The Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” U.S. Const. amend. XI. The Amendment “bars a citizen from bringing suit against the citizen’s own State” as well. Welch v. Texas Dept. of Highways and Public Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 472 (1987) (citing Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 10 (1890)).

2 Plaintiff has cited no authority waiving the immunity of either the United States or the State

of Washington for the dubious claims asserted. At bottom, Plaintiff wants this Court “to intervene

where local remedies have failed,” Compl. at 2, but it “is a well-established principle” that a district

court cannot review “the decisions of its sister court [and] compel it to act.” Atchison v. U.S.

District Courts, 240 F. Supp. 3d 121, 126 n.6 (D.D.C. 2017). What’s more, under the well-known

Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal district courts “lack jurisdiction to review judicial decisions by

state . . . courts.” Richardson v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 83 F.3d 1513, 1514 (D.C.

Cir. 1996). Finally, there is no apparent venue in Washington, D.C., for defendants and their

alleged acts all in Washington State. See Montgomery v. Barr, 502 F. Supp. 3d 165, 173 (D.D.C.

2020) (warning against manufactured venue in the District of Columbia). Therefore, this case will

be dismissed by separate order.

TREVOR N. McFADDEN Date: November 17, 2025 United States District Judge