Williams v. Campbell

District of Columbia

Williams v. Campbell

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedApril 17, 2015

DocketCivil Action No. 2015-0107

StatusPublished

This text of Williams v. Campbell (Williams v. Campbell) 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.

Bluebook

Williams v. Campbell, (D.D.C. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

(xv)

FILED

APR172015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT mus. Dlstrlcm Bankruptcy FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WWW WW0? Columbia

ANDRE WILLIAMS, ) Plaintiff, i V. i Civil Action NO. 15-107 (UNA) JOAN CAMPBELL, JUDGE, 3 Defendant. ; MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff purports to bring this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Texas judge who presided over his criminal case. He claims that the judge violated rights protected under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by closing the courtroom during jury selection and during a suppression hearing. While plaintiff demands no monetary damages, he demands a declaratory judgment, thereby inviting this Court to review the decisions of a state court judge. A federal district court has no authority to review the decisions of a state court. See Richardson v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 83 F.3d 1513, 1514 (DC. Cir. 1996) (citing District ofColumbia v. Feldman, 460 US. 462, 476 (1983) and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 US. 413 (1923)). The Court will grant plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(2). An Order

consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(xv)

FILED

APR172015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT mus. Dlstrlcm Bankruptcy FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WWW WW0? Columbia

ANDRE WILLIAMS, ) Plaintiff, i V. i Civil Action NO. 15-107 (UNA) JOAN CAMPBELL, JUDGE, 3 Defendant. ; MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff purports to bring this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Texas judge who presided over his criminal case. He claims that the judge violated rights protected under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by closing the courtroom during jury selection and during a suppression hearing. While plaintiff demands no monetary damages, he demands a declaratory judgment, thereby inviting this Court to review the decisions of a state court judge. A federal district court has no authority to review the decisions of a state court. See Richardson v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 83 F.3d 1513, 1514 (DC. Cir. 1996) (citing District ofColumbia v. Feldman, 460 US. 462, 476 (1983) and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 US. 413 (1923)). The Court will grant plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(2). An Order

consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Williams v. Campbell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-campbell-dcd-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack