JACKSON v. CAMILLETTI et al, No. 1:2009cv01110 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 6/10/09. (ls, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Paul Lee Jackson, Plaintiff, v. Paul T. Camilletti et aI., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. Clerk, U.S. 01: cr c: and Bankl uptc', C(.urts 09 1110 MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on plaintiff s pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiffs application and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff is a prisoner at the Federal Correctional Center in Petersburg, Virginia. He sues two assistant United States attorneys and a private attorney in Martinsburg, West Virginia, several employees of the West Virginia State Police, and the Sheriff of Jefferson County in Charlestown, West Virginia., for acts allegedly taken during the criminal investigation and prosecution of plaintiff in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. Plaintiff also sues the United States Magistrate Judge who recommended the denial of his petition for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that defendants "did conspire to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate [him] in the free exercise or enjoyment of his [constitutional] rights[.]" Compi. at 2. He seeks only a jury trial. Id. at 5. In the complaint and the attached "Affidavit in Support of Complaint," plaintiff is contesting the evidence supporting his conviction. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the proceedings of another court. See 28 U.S.c. §§ 1331, 1332 (general jurisdictional provisions); Fleming v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 1150 (1995). The complaint therefore will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. Date: June ~ l~- --- UIliteSDiStIict Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
