Roland v. Office of Judge in Chambers

District of Columbia

Roland v. Office of Judge in Chambers

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedAugust 2, 2013

DocketCivil Action No. 2013-1196

StatusPublished

This text of Roland v. Office of Judge in Chambers (Roland v. Office of Judge in Chambers) 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

Roland v. Office of Judge in Chambers, (D.D.C. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITEI) STATES DISTRICT coURT F z 1 § D FoR THE MSTRICT oF C0LUMBIA v ass ~ 2 2013

cn=r¢<, us i)¢<;r,

DAVONTA MELVIN ROLAND, ) CDU t . cr & Bankru S` y , 3 ~ _, pt ) r to th U)sh.ctc)f Colutnic>i:; Plaintiff, ) > .. o 15 /\\"? v ) Civil Act10n No. ) OFFlCE OF JUDGE lN CHAMBERS, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on consideration of the plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed.

lt appears that plaintiff attempted to file a case in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on July 10, 2013, but when she returned on July l2, 2013 there were "no forms to be found," forcing her "to refile [her case on] July 16[, 2013]." Compl. at l. She deems this an "abuse of process without due process" of law, as well as an unlawful delay in proceedings. Ia’. Among other relief, she demands damages of $7 billion. Id. This Court has no jurisdiction to review or reverse the decisions of the Superior Court, or to direct the activities of the Judge in Chambers. See, e.g., Mooreman v. U.S. Bank, NA., No. 10-1_219, 2010 WL 2884661, at *l (D.D.C. July l0, 2010); Fleml`ng v. United States, 847 F. Supp. l70, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), aff’a', 1994 WL 474995 (D.C. Cir. 1994), cert. a'enied, 513 U.S. ll50 (l995). Accordingly, the Court

will dismiss this action. An Order is issued separately.

7/2%; "%" %/%/"‘¢"

United States District dge

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

UNITEI) STATES DISTRICT coURT F z 1 § D FoR THE MSTRICT oF C0LUMBIA v ass ~ 2 2013

cn=r¢<, us i)¢<;r,

DAVONTA MELVIN ROLAND, ) CDU t . cr & Bankru S` y , 3 ~ _, pt ) r to th U)sh.ctc)f Colutnic>i:; Plaintiff, ) > .. o 15 /\\"? v ) Civil Act10n No. ) OFFlCE OF JUDGE lN CHAMBERS, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on consideration of the plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed.

lt appears that plaintiff attempted to file a case in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on July 10, 2013, but when she returned on July l2, 2013 there were "no forms to be found," forcing her "to refile [her case on] July 16[, 2013]." Compl. at l. She deems this an "abuse of process without due process" of law, as well as an unlawful delay in proceedings. Ia’. Among other relief, she demands damages of $7 billion. Id. This Court has no jurisdiction to review or reverse the decisions of the Superior Court, or to direct the activities of the Judge in Chambers. See, e.g., Mooreman v. U.S. Bank, NA., No. 10-1_219, 2010 WL 2884661, at *l (D.D.C. July l0, 2010); Fleml`ng v. United States, 847 F. Supp. l70, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), aff’a', 1994 WL 474995 (D.C. Cir. 1994), cert. a'enied, 513 U.S. ll50 (l995). Accordingly, the Court

will dismiss this action. An Order is issued separately.

7/2%; "%" %/%/"‘¢"

United States District dge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Roland v. Office of Judge in Chambers, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roland-v-office-of-judge-in-chambers-dcd-2013.