Ciacci v. Superior Court for the District of Columbia ( 2020 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Michael K. Ciacci, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 20-cv-504 (UNA)
)
)
Superior Court for the District of Columbia, )
)
Defendant. )
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). 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). Failure to plead such facts warrants
dismissal of the action.
Plaintiff is a resident of Waialua, Hawaii. He seeks “to compel” the Superior Court of
the District of Columbia “to answer” his pending Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct
Sentence and Judgment under D.C. Code § 23-110. Plaintiff alleges that the motion has been
pending in Superior Court since October 9, 2019. This federal district court is not a reviewing
1
court, and it cannot order the Superior Court to take any action. See 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)); accord Atchison v. U.S. Dist. Courts, 240 F.
Supp. 3d 121, 126 n.6 (D.D.C. 2017) (“It is a well-established principle that a district court can
neither review the decisions of its sister court nor compel it to act.”). Consequently, this case
will be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
2020.03.30
14:25:14 -04'00'
_____________________________
Date: March 30, 2020 TREVOR N. McFADDEN, U.S.D.J.
2