Wade v. Smith

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SHANTE D. WADE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 23-3642 (UNA) ) WILLIAM C. SMITH d/b/a ) TA ARCHER PARK APTS, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and

her pro se complaint. The Court will grant the application and, for the reasons stated below, will

dismiss the complaint without prejudice.

Plaintiff brings this action against her former landlord, which effected plaintiff’s eviction

for non-payment of rent. See Compl. at 1. Among the documents she submits is a notice of a

related case (ECF No. 5) in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia which culminated

with execution of a Writ of Restitution. See William C. Smith & Co., Inc. TA Archer Park v.

Wade, No. 2022-LTB-005817 (D.C. Super. Ct. Nov. 16, 2023).1

According to plaintiff, the “lease application and . . . lease contract [were] traded on the

secondary market without [her] consent or knowledge,” at which point “the lease for the

apartment was paid in full according to a Bloomberg financial audit.” Compl. at 1. And she

allegedly sent “the endorsed lease agreement and several other instruments to the defendant” and

received no response. Id. Thus, plaintiff alleges, defendant received payment “as soon as the

1 The Court takes judicial notice of publicly available Superior Court filings. See Capitol Servs. Mgmt., Inc. v. Vesta Corp., 933 F.3d 784, 789 (D.C. Cir. 2019). 1 defendant traded the instrument on the secondary market,” id., and, in fact, “was paid 3 times,”

id. Plaintiff demands either return of the negotiable instrument(s) or an award of $5 million. On

the premise that she is owed money, plaintiff submits a Motion to Deposit Funds with the Court

and Order to Invest in an Interest Bearing Account (ECF No. 3).

The Court must dismiss this complaint for at least two reasons. First, there are no factual

allegations to support a viable claim against defendant for “false statements, embezzlement,

securities fraud and breach of trust.” Compl. at 1 (emphasis removed). Second, insofar as

plaintiff challenges the outcome of the Superior Court proceedings, this federal district court

“lack[s] jurisdiction to review judicial decisions by . . . District of Columbia courts.” Richardson

v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 83 F.3d 1513, 1514 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (citations

omitted); see Dorsey v. Superior Court for the District of Columbia, 709 F. App’x 22 (D.C. Cir.

2017) (per curiam).

An Order is issued separately.

DATE: January 8, 2024 CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER United States District Judge