Dingler v. Roberts ( 2018 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JOSEPH DINGLER,
Petitioner,
v. Civil Action No. 18-527 (RDM)
JOHN G. ROBERTS, Chief Justice of the
United States, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Joseph Dingler, proceeding pro se, has filed a “Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad
Testificandum.” See Dkt. 1. A writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum is “the common law
writ for the production of witnesses who are confined in jail and who are thus beyond the reach
of the ordinary subpoena.” Neufield v. United States, 118 F.2d 375, 385 (D.C. Cir. 1941).
Petitioner does seek the production of any witness. Instead, he claims that the Chief Justice of
the United States and the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court “denied Petitioner [a]ccess to US
jurisdiction,” Dkt. 1 at 11; that their “restraints on liberty are severe,” id. at 12; that there has
been “judicial over-reach by unconstitutional legislation,” id. at 13; that an “illiberal
construction [has been] applied, [leaving] no access to justice,” id. at 18; and that he has a
“right of access under the petition clause,” id. at 21. As Dingler’s statement of facts explains,
these claims all derive from the Supreme Court’s denial of—or failure to accept—his petitions
for writs of certiorari and mandamus. Dkt. 1 at 2–4. This Court has no jurisdiction to consider
challenges to the Supreme Court’s exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction, see, e.g., In re
Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (holding that a similar claim was barred for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction); id. (“We are aware of no authority for the proposition that a lower
court may compel the Clerk of the Supreme Court to take any action.”); Po Kee Wong v. U.S.
Sol. Gen., 839 F. Supp. 2d 130, 138 (D.D.C. 2012) (“Plaintiff has identified no jurisdictional
basis under which this Court would have authority to review the Supreme
Court’s denial of certiorari; indeed, there is none.”), or “to correct [any] irregularities of [the
Clerk of the Supreme Court] and compel him to perform his duty,” In re Marin, 956 F.2d at
340 (quoting Griffin v. Thompson, 43 U.S. (2 How.) 244, 257 (1844)); Hirsch v. Harris, No.
15-cv-488, 2015 WL 1540490, at *1 (D.D.C. April 16, 2015) (same).
The Court will, accordingly, DISMISS this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and will DENY Petitioner’s motion for ECF password, Dkt. 2.
A separate order will issue.
/s/ Randolph D. Moss
RANDOLPH D. MOSS
United States District Judge
Date: March 28, 2018
2