Solomon v. Solomon

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CARGYLE BROWN SOLOMON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 25-0024 (UNA)

)

JAMES ELLISON SOLOMON, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se complaint. The application will be granted, and for the reasons stated below, the complaint will be dismissed.

It appears that, in July 2012, an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia entered an amended decree of absolute divorce which, according to plaintiff, awarded plaintiff certain pension benefits from defendant James Ellison Solomon. See Compl. at 4 (page numbers designated by CM/ECF). In this action, plaintiff challenges the Superior Court’s December 10, 2024, Order which allegedly declared that plaintiff is not entitled to these benefits. See id. at 4-5. Plaintiff asks this Court to reverse the December 10, 2024, Order, and instead, enforce the 2012 decree. Id. at 5. This Court lacks jurisdiction to grant such relief.

As a general rule, applicable here, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the decisions, enjoin the actions, or interpret the rulings of the Superior Court. Richardson v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 83 F.3d 1513, 1514 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (relying on District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983) and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415, 416 (1923)); Fleming v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C.

2

1994), aff’d, No. 94-5079, 1994 WL 474995 (D.C. Cir. July 27, 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1150 (1995).

An Order is issued separately.

DATE: February 18, 2025 /s/ RUDOLPH CONTRERAS

United States District Judge