Lassiter v. District of Columbia Courts

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: January 2, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-3620
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MASHIACH C. LASSITER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-03620 (UNA) ) DISTRICT OF ) COLUMBIA COURTS, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s pro se Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.”), ECF

No. 14, and his Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP App.”), ECF No. 2. The

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

matter without prejudice.

Plaintiff sues the District of Columbia, the D.C. Superior Court, a D.C. Superior Court

Judge, and an attorney involved in proceedings in which Plaintiff was a party. See Am. Compl. at

1–3. Plaintiff alleges that several of his rights were violated due to various wrongs that occurred

during proceedings held before the D.C. Superior Court Family Division, including omnibus denial

of his motions and other requests, “procedural irregularities,” and miscalculation of his benefits.

See id. at 2–4; see also Complaint, ECF No. 1, at 2. He demands assorted declaratory and

injunctive relief reversing and denouncing the actions of the D.C. Superior Court in those

proceedings. See Am. Compl. at 4–5.

At root, Plaintiff demands that this Court review and intervene in a D.C. Superior Court

matter, but this the Court is without subject matter jurisdiction to do so. Federal district courts

generally lack jurisdiction to review or interfere with judicial decisions by state courts and local bodies. Applicable here, the domestic relations exception specifically deprives a federal district

court of the power to issue or modify the determinations at issue. See Ankenbrandt v. Richards,

504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992); Bennett v. Bennett, 682 F.2d 1039, 1042 (D.C. Cir. 1982). In other

words, a family court’s decisions must be contested in the local courts where the proceedings were

held. See Bennett, at 682 F.2d at 1042–43. If Plaintiff seeks review of the propriety of the actions

of the D.C. Superior Court, such is the province of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. See

D.C. Ct. App. R. 4(a); D.C. Code § 11–721.

For these reasons, the Amended Complaint, ECF No. 14, and this case, are dismissed

without prejudice. Plaintiff’s other pending Motions, ECF Nos. 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 15, are all denied

as moot. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: January 2, 2026 /s/_________________________ ANA C. REYES United States District Judge