Williams v. Seymore
This text of Williams v. Seymore (Williams v. Seymore) 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.
Opinion
/1¢\
FILED
0CT 1 5 2013
C|erk. U.S.
UNITED sTATEs DISTRICT coURT coins w¢u»e mstri¢§,m
FOR THE DISTRICT 0F COLUMBIA
ANDRE WILLlAMS, Plaintiff, Civil Action No.
V.
CHARLES SEYMORE,
L/\_/L/&§éS\-J\/
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on consideration of the plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendant, who presided over the direct appeal of his criminal case, failed to appoint counsel to represent him and thus "effectively suspend[ed] the due process of the appellate proceedings." Compl. at 3-4. He neither challenges his conviction nor demands monetary damages. Id at 4. Rather, the plaintiff demands injunctii/e relief directing the defendant to appoint appellate counsel to represent the plaintiff on direct appeal. Id. This Court cannot grant the relief the plaintiff demands because "a United States District Court has no authority to review final judgments of a state court in judicial proceedings." District of Columbz`a Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); see Lightfoot v. District of Columbia, 448 F.3d 392, 398 (D.C. Cir. 2006); Weekly v. M0rr0w, 204 F.3d 6l3, 615 (5th Cir. 2000). An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
DATE: 5} 2_0/'?` nit tates District Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Williams v. Seymore, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-seymore-dcd-2012.