Nunnally v. Judicial Branch of the Government of the United States

District of Columbia

Nunnally v. Judicial Branch of the Government of the United States

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedFebruary 27, 2017

DocketCivil Action No. 2017-0346

StatusPublished

This text of Nunnally v. Judicial Branch of the Government of the United States (Nunnally v. Judicial Branch of the Government of the United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nunnally v. Judicial Branch of the Government of the United States, (D.D.C. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUl\/IBIA

Trevin Nunnally, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case: 1117-Cv-00346 v_ ) .“\ssig.ieu ¢o: Unassigned ) Assign. Date : 2/27/2017 ) Description: Pro Se Gen. Civ. (F-DECK) J udicial Branch of the Government ) of the United States et al. ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has submitted a Complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis The Court will grant the application and will dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring dismissal of an action “at any time” the Court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction).

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner incarcerated in Yazoo, Mississippi. He sues the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and a U.S. magistrate judge in the Northern District of Florida, claiming error in their decisions with regard to an arrest warrant. Plaintiff wants this Court, among other relief, “to remove the illegal arrest warrant.” Compl. at 6. But as a general rule applicable here, this federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review the decisions of other courts. See Unl`red Stales v. Choz`, 818 F. Supp. 2d 79, 85 (D.D.C. 2011) (district courts “generally lack[] appellate jurisdiction over other judicial bodies, and cannot exercise appellate mandamus over other courts.”) (citing Lewz`s v. Green, 629 F. Supp. 546, 553 (D.D.C.1986)); F]eming v. Um`lea' States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), cer!. denied 513 U.S. 1150

(1995) (noting that “[b]y filing a complaint in this Court against . . .judges who have done

nothing more than their duty . . . Fleming has instituted a meritless aetion”) (applying District of Columbl`a Court Oprpeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Rooker v. Fl`delz`ty Trust Co.,

263 U.S. 413, 415, 416 (1923)); see also Panko v. Rodak, 606 F.2d 168, 171 n.6 (7th Cir. 1979), cerl. denied, 444 U.S. 1081 (1980) (“It seems axiomatic that a lower court may not order the

is case will be dismissed

judges or officers of a higher court to take an action.”). T 4

A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum O'

Date: Februar;Q' , 2017 United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUl\/IBIA

Trevin Nunnally, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case: 1117-Cv-00346 v_ ) .“\ssig.ieu ¢o: Unassigned ) Assign. Date : 2/27/2017 ) Description: Pro Se Gen. Civ. (F-DECK) J udicial Branch of the Government ) of the United States et al. ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has submitted a Complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis The Court will grant the application and will dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring dismissal of an action “at any time” the Court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction).

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner incarcerated in Yazoo, Mississippi. He sues the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and a U.S. magistrate judge in the Northern District of Florida, claiming error in their decisions with regard to an arrest warrant. Plaintiff wants this Court, among other relief, “to remove the illegal arrest warrant.” Compl. at 6. But as a general rule applicable here, this federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review the decisions of other courts. See Unl`red Stales v. Choz`, 818 F. Supp. 2d 79, 85 (D.D.C. 2011) (district courts “generally lack[] appellate jurisdiction over other judicial bodies, and cannot exercise appellate mandamus over other courts.”) (citing Lewz`s v. Green, 629 F. Supp. 546, 553 (D.D.C.1986)); F]eming v. Um`lea' States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), cer!. denied 513 U.S. 1150

(1995) (noting that “[b]y filing a complaint in this Court against . . .judges who have done

nothing more than their duty . . . Fleming has instituted a meritless aetion”) (applying District of Columbl`a Court Oprpeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Rooker v. Fl`delz`ty Trust Co.,

263 U.S. 413, 415, 416 (1923)); see also Panko v. Rodak, 606 F.2d 168, 171 n.6 (7th Cir. 1979), cerl. denied, 444 U.S. 1081 (1980) (“It seems axiomatic that a lower court may not order the

is case will be dismissed

judges or officers of a higher court to take an action.”). T 4

A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum O'

Date: Februar;Q' , 2017 United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Nunnally v. Judicial Branch of the Government of the United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nunnally-v-judicial-branch-of-the-government-of-the-united-states-dcd-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack