Smith v. Thomas
This text of Smith v. Thomas (Smith v. Thomas) 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.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
KENNETH SMITH,
Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 09-1926 (JDB) HON. CLARENCE THOMAS, in his official capacity as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is [6] defendants' motion to dismiss Mr. Smith's complaint. Mr. Smith
seeks "a mandate from this Court requiring the Justices of the United States Supreme Court to
hear all petitions brought to that body under a writ of error or in the alternative, a formal
declaration that the Bill of Rights is null and void for want of meaningful enforcement." Compl.
at p. 3. He also has filed an "Emergency Motion for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief", which
seeks the same relief. See Pl.'s Emergency Mot. for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [Docket
Entry 2].
The Court cannot grant the requested relief, however, because it lacks jurisdiction to
compel official action by the Justices of the United States Supreme Court. "[I]t seems axiomatic
that a lower court may not order the judges or officers of a higher court to take an action." Panko
v. Rodak, 606 F.2d 168, 171 n.6 (7th Cir. 1979); accord In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C.
Cir. 1992) (citing Panko). That the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus also
disposes of Mr. Smith's request for declaratory relief. A declaratory judgment is available only "[i]n a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). The absence of
jurisdiction here renders declaratory relief unavailable. Therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED and Mr. Smith's complaint
is DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED that [2] Mr. Smith's emergency motion for declaratory and injunctive relief
is DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ JOHN D. BATES United States District Judge
Dated: January 21, 2010
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Smith v. Thomas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-thomas-dcd-2010.