eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
 2021-02

Charles Stringer v. John Downy ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 20-5277                                                  September Term, 2020
1:20-cv-01898-UNA
Filed On: February 8, 2021
Charles L. Stringer,
Appellant
v.
John Downy, et al.,
Appellees
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BEFORE:         Henderson and Katsas, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit
Judge
JUDGMENT
This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.
34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed July 27, 2020
and August 18, 2020, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the case
without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Decatur Liquors, Inc. v.
District of Columbia,
    478 F.3d 360
    , 363 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (federal courts lack subject
matter jurisdiction over “obviously frivolous” claims); Smalls v. United States,
    471 F.3d 186
    , 192 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (“A federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review decisions
of other federal courts.”). The dismissal without prejudice allows appellant to file a new
complaint in the appropriate manner. See Comm. for Effective Cellular Rules v. FCC,
    53 F.3d 1309
    , 1318 (D.C. Cir. 1995). In addition, appellant cannot compel a criminal
investigation by filing a complaint in district court. Cf. Windsor v. Evans,
    403 F. App'x 527
    , 528 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (“[A] government official’s decision whether to investigate and
prosecute a case is within the unreviewable discretion of the Executive Branch.”).
Lastly, appellant has not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion by
dismissing his claims without allowing discovery, or in denying his motion to alter or
amend the judgment. See, e.g., Food Lion, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers
Int'l Union, AFL-CIO-CLC,
    103 F.3d 1007
    , 1012 (D.C. Cir. 1997); Firestone v. Firestone,
    76 F.3d 1205
    , 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (per curiam).
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 20-5277                                                September Term, 2020
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk
is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution
of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.
P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY:     /s/
Daniel J. Reidy
Deputy Clerk
Page 2