Sumrall v. Ali

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: July 9, 2025
• Docket: Misc. No. 2025-0110
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

KIMMARA SUMRALL,

Plaintiff,

v. Miscellaneous Action No. 25 - 110 (LLA)

JANINE ALI,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Kimmara Sumrall asks this court to issue two subpoenas in connection with a

July 2025 hearing in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3. First, she

seeks the attendance and testimony of a United States Capitol Police (“USCP”) officer who

witnessed an assault on her in November 2024. ECF Nos. 1, 2 at 1-2. Second, she seeks the

attendance and testimony of the USCP’s records custodian and, through the custodian, the

production of photographs and videos connected to her case. ECF No. 3, at 1.

Ms. Sumrall previously sought to secure the testimony of the USCP officer through a

Superior Court subpoena, see ECF No. 1-3, but she was informed by the USCP General Counsel’s

Office that the USCP “cannot accept service of a subpoena issued by the District of Columbia

Superior Court because[,] as a federal agency, USCP is not subject to the jurisdiction of the

Superior Court,” ECF No. 1, at 2-3. She was further informed that USCP “will accept service if

the District Court for the District of Columbia issue[s] the subpoena.” ECF No. 1, at 2-3.

“A state subpoena commanding a federal agency to produce its records or have its

employees testify about information obtained in their official capacities violates federal sovereign immunity.” In re Subpoena in Collins, 524 F.3d 249, 251 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Ms. Sumrall was

therefore correctly informed that the USCP and its employees are not subject to subpoenas issued

by the Superior Court. See Baugh v. U.S. Capitol Police, No. 22-CV-139, 2022 WL 2702325,

at *4 (D.D.C. July 12, 2022) (finding that the USCP is a federal agency that is shielded by

sovereign immunity).

Federal agencies have waived their sovereign immunity as it relates to subpoenas in federal

court. Hou. Bus. J., Inc. v. Off. of Comptroller of Currency, U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 86 F.3d 1208,

1212 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Unfortunately for Ms. Sumrall, however, federal courts lack subject-matter

jurisdiction to issue subpoenas in connection with litigation in state court. Id. at 1212; see id.

at 1213 (explaining that a federal district court lacks “power to issue a subpoena when the

underlying action is not . . . asserted to be within federal-court jurisdiction”). Because this court

lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to grant the relief Ms. Sumrall seeks, it will deny her motions to

issue subpoenas. A contemporaneous order will issue.

LOREN L. ALIKHAN United States District Judge Date: July 9, 2025