Summary
The District Court for the District of Columbia grants the plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, denies her motion for a temporary restraining order, and dismisses the complaint. The court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to halt or review ongoing proceedings in the District of Columbia Superior Court and dismisses the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).
Court
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Decision date
June 17, 2026
Docket number
Civil Action No. 26-02089 (UNA)
Disposition
dismissed
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to review or halt an ongoing Superior Court of the District of Columbia proceeding.
- Whether the district court could issue a temporary restraining order concerning the local-court proceeding.
- Whether the complaint had to be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).
Holdings
- The District Court for the District of Columbia lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims because the complaint sought review or appellate mandamus concerning proceedings in the local courts.
- The district court could not issue a temporary restraining order because it lacked jurisdiction over the underlying case.
- The complaint had to be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…