Knight v. Hughes,et Al

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: October 30, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-2994
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARVIN KNIGHT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-2994 (UNA) ) DOES, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of this pro se plaintiff’s application to proceed

in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) and civil complaint (ECF No. 1). The Court GRANTS the

application and DISMISSES the complaint without prejudice. The plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos.

4-10) are DENIED without prejudice as moot.

The Court understands the plaintiff to challenge a decision of the District of Columbia

Department of Employment Services (“DOES”) regarding unemployment insurance benefits. An

appeal of this matter properly goes before the District of Columbia Office of Administrative

Hearings (“OAH”), not this federal district court. See D.C. Code § 2-1831.03(b)(1); Wright-Taylor

v. Howard Univ. Hosp., 974 A.2d 210, 213 (D.C. 2009) (“The Office of Administrative Hearings

Establishment Act of 2001 calls on OAH to perform the administrative review conducted formerly

by DOES, which is now done by one administrative law judge, with a direct appeal therefrom to

this court.”). An appeal of an OAH decision is not properly before this court either. Rather,

“[j]udicial review of all orders of the [OAH] in contested cases shall be in the District of Columbia

Court of Appeals in accordance with the procedures and rules of that court.” D.C. Code § 2-

1831.16(e); see id. § 2-1831.16(c) (“[A]ny person suffering a legal wrong or adversely affected or

aggrieved by any order of the Office in any adjudicated case may obtain judicial review of that order.”); see also Thomas v. Nat’l Children’s Ctr., Inc., 961 A.2d 1063, 1065 (D.C. 2008) (stating

that the District of Columbia Court of Appeals “reviews OAH decisions to determine whether they

are ‘[a]rbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.’”

(quoting D.C. Code § 2–510(a)(3)(A)).

An Order is issued separately.

DATE: October 30, 2025 /s/ DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH United States District Judge