Watkins v. Bowser

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________ ) RONALD K. WATKINS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 26-cv-00198 (APM) ) MURIEL BOWSER, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The substance of Plaintiff Ronald K. Watkins’s suit is hard to decipher. So far as the court

can tell, he seeks to enforce a judgment that he secured in the D.C. courts against the District of

Columbia nearly 20 years ago. See Compl., ECF No. 1, at 2 (referencing the court’s “enforcement”

jurisdiction and citing Watkins v. District of Columbia, 944 A.2d 1077 (D.C. 2008)). Even if the

court has jurisdiction over this matter, the better course is to abstain from exercising it. See Reiman

v. Smith, 12 F.3d 222, 225 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (observing that “if this is indeed an action ‘merely’ to

enforce a judgment [of the D.C. Superior Court], then that might also tend to justify abstention”).

Plaintiff’s underlying suit was filed in the D.C. Superior Court over two decades ago, see Watkins,

944 A.2d at 1079, and the award in his favor on a D.C. statutory law claim was affirmed by the

D.C. Court of Appeals, see id. (noting claim under the D.C. Whistleblower Protection Act). In this

case, he advances no discernable federal claim. See generally Compl. For these reasons,

abstaining and dismissing this action is warranted. See Reiman, 12 F.3d at 224–25.

A final, appealable order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. Dated: February 19, 2026 Amit P. Mehta United States District Judge