HANKINS v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA et al, No. 1:2021cv01066 - Document 10 (D.D.C. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on 06/14/2021. (znmg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
HANKINS v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA et al Doc. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TIMOTHY OMAR HANKINS, SR., Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, et al., Defendants. FILED JUNE 14, 2021 Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 21-01066 (UNA) MEMORANDUM OPINION The plaintiff filed this suit on April 18, 2021 against 40 defendants, including the State of North Carolina, the N.C. Court of Appeals, the N.C. State Bar Association, the governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, several state court judges and state officers, and a number of private defendants including Suntrust Bank, Bank of America, and Whole Foods Market. See Compl., Dkt. 1. On June 1, 2021, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against the defendants, see Dkt. 7, and on June 10, 2021, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, see Dkt. 9. Crediting all inferences to the plaintiff and liberally construing the complaint, the plaintiff asserts a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his rights under the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiff’s claims pertain to events leading up to and including divorce proceedings before North Carolina state courts and a resulting Distribution Order, see Compl. Dkt. 1, Ex. 20, that disposed of marital assets, including real property. He seeks an order barring enforcement of the Distribution Order. This Court lacks jurisdiction to provide the plaintiff’s requested relief. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (“Federal Courts are courts of limited 1 Dockets.Justia.com jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.”); NetworkIP, LLC v. FCC, 548 F.3d 116, 120 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (“It is axiomatic that subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived, and that courts may raise the issue sua sponte.”). As a general rule, a federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review the decisions of other courts. See, e.g., Petrovic v. United States, No. 1:19-CV-00482, 2019 WL 1746301, at *2 (D.D.C. Apr. 17, 2019); United States v. Choi, 818 F. Supp. 2d 79, 85 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing Lewis v. Green, 629 F. Supp. 546, 553 (D.D.C. 1986)); Fleming v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994) (applying District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983), and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415, 416 (1923); see also Prentice v. U.S. Dist. Court for E. Dist. of Mich., 307 F. App’x 460, 460 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (“[B]ecause a challenge to a state court action must proceed through that state’s system of appellate review rather than through a federal district court, the district court properly determined it lack jurisdiction to review action taken by a . . . state court.” (citations omitted)). Here, if this Court were to entertain the plaintiff’s claims, it would necessarily need to review and overturn rulings of a North Carolina court over which it lacks jurisdiction. As a result, the Court will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.1 An Order is issued separately. DATE: June 14, 2021 DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH United States District Judge The plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and for a permanent injunction, Dkt. 5, is dismissed as moot. 1 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.
