Williams v. Frost

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: December 17, 2014
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2014-1731
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 0' k 1 7 20"} er , . .Dlstrlct&Bankru tc FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Courts for the District of Colu'rjnbi’a Andre Williams, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 14-1731 (UNA) ) Kern Thompson Frost, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed an action styled “Complaint for Declaratory Judgment with Remedial Actions to Redress Injury,” along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring dismissal of an action “at any time” the Court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction).

Plaintiff is a Texas state prisoner suing the Chief Justice of the Texas Fourteenth District Court of Appeals for alleged acts taken “as and for the 14th Court of Appeals, Houston, Texas.” Compl., ECF p. 3. The prolix complaint is difficult to follow but plaintiff states that he “has spent 12 years suffering in prison as a result of a wrongful conviction and seeks only a full and fair appeal hearing to demonstrate his claim.” 1d., ECF p. 17.

“[I]t is well-settled that a [person] seeking relief from his conviction or sentence may not

bring [actions for injunctive and declaratory relief].” Williams v. Hill, 74 F.3d 1339, 1340 (DC. Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (citations omitted). Rather, relief from a state court judgment must be pursued under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in an appropriate federal court designated by 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(d). The latter provision provides no recourse for plaintiff in this Court, In addition, “[t]his l

Court does not have jurisdiction to review the decision of a state supreme court.” Fleming v.

UnitedStateS, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), cert. denied513 US. 1150 (1995) (following District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 US 462, 482 (1983); Rooker

v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 US. 413, 415, 416 (1923)). Hence, this case will be dismissed. A

separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: December {fl ,2014