CLEVELAND v. SHAWNEE COUNTY COURTHOUSE, No. 1:2023cv01703 - Document 5 (D.D.C. 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Trevor N. McFadden on 7/11/2023. (zrtw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLEVELAND v. SHAWNEE COUNTY COURTHOUSE Doc. 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BITAVIA CLEVELAND, Plaintiff, v. SHAWNEE COUNTY COURTHOUSE, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 23-01703 (UNA) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on its initial review of Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action “at any time” it determines that subject-matter jurisdiction is wanting). “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute,” and it is “presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). The subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is set forth generally at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under those statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a “federal question” is presented or the parties are of diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. A party seeking relief in the district court must at least plead facts that bring the suit within the court’s jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, has sued a county court in Topeka, Kansas. The cryptically worded Complaint, ECF No. 1, neither presents a federal question nor demands any relief. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks review of the referenced “Court Case,” id. at 1, this district court lacks jurisdiction. See Gray v. Poole, 275 F.3d 1113, 1119 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (“The RookerFeldman doctrine prevents lower federal courts from hearing cases that amount to the functional equivalent of an appeal from a state court.”) (citing Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923)); United States v. Choi, 818 F. Supp. 2d 79, 85 (D.D.C. 2011) (district courts “generally lack[] appellate jurisdiction over other judicial bodies, and cannot exercise appellate mandamus over other courts.”) (citing Lewis v. Green, 629 F. Supp. 546, 553 (D.D.C. 1986)). Therefore, this case will be dismissed by separate order. TREVOR N. McFADDEN United States District Judge Date: July 11, 2023 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.
