STARLING v. ROYAL, No. 1:2015cv01685 - Document 4 (D.D.C. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 10/29/2015. (lcapm3)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
STARLING v. ROYAL Doc. 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) Edward Starling, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) C. Ashley Royal, ) ) Defendant. ) _________________________________________ ) Civil No. 15-cv-01685 (APM) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Edward Starling, proceeding pro se, has filed a “Complaint for Deliberate Indifference to United States Congress Legislated United States Constitutional Guarantees.” Compl., ECF No. 1. While the substance of his allegations are far from clear, Plaintiff appears to be seeking over $2.5 billion in relief for alleged judicial misconduct by former Chief Judge Wilbur D. Owens, Jr. of the Middle District of Georgia while handling Plaintiff’s criminal case starting in 1985. See id. at 12. After Chief Judge Owens left office in 1997, Plaintiff’s criminal case was taken over by Judge C. Ashley Royal, the named defendant in this case. See id. at 10. Plaintiff’s suit is hereby dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction because this court lacks jurisdiction to review the decisions of another federal district court. 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). This court lacks jurisdiction to review any action by Chief Judge Owens, Judge Royal, or any other judge for the Middle District of Georgia. See, e.g., Bush v. Kollar-Kotelly, Civ. No. 081122, 2008 WL 2595879, at *1 (D.D.C. June 30, 2008) (“This Court has no authority to review the decisions of another federal district court judge.”); Lasko v. McAvoy, Civ. No. 12-0093, 2012 Dockets.Justia.com WL 171542, at *1 (D.D.C. Jan. 20, 2012) (“[A] federal district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the decisions of another district court.”). Accordingly, this case will be dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. Date: October 29, 2015 ____________ Amit P. Mehta United States District Judge
]]>
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.
