CLARK-BEY v. STATE OF MARYLAND, et al.,

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Rosemary M. Collyer on 1/25/2013. (ls, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Amun Ra Clark Bey,
Plaintiff,
v.
State of Maryland et al.,
Defendants.

FILED
FEB- 5 2013
Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
Courts for the District of Columbia

Civil Action No.

13 0149

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and application
to proceed informapauperis. The Court will grant plaintiffs application to proceed informa

pauperis and will dismiss this action 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).
Plaintiff, a Maryland resident, sues the State of Maryland, the District Court of Maryland
for Prince George's County, high-level Maryland officials, judicial officers, and a county police
officer. See Com pl. Caption. Plaintiff "demands [a] Writ of Prohibition to void judgment made
by State of Maryland, Prince George's County Circuit Court or any other court in the State of
Maryland, Incorporated." Com pl. at 1; see id. at 15 ("This action seeks the Court to issue a Writ
of Prohibition compelling Lawrence V. Hill, Jr., Chief Magistrate Judge Ben C. Clyburn ... and
any other court appointed judge to honor the Default Judgment."). Except for those statements,
the complaint makes little sense.

N

,.1

3

Jurisdiction is wanting because a federal district court is not a reviewing court and, thus,
lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the decisions of a state court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
1332 (general jurisdictional provisions); Fleming v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172
(D.D.C. 1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 1150 (1995) (citing District of Columbia Court ofAppeals

v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462,482 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413,415,416
(1923)). In addition, the complaint is "patently insubstantial, presenting no federal question
suitable for decision.'" Caldwell v. Kagan, 777 F. Supp. 2d 177, 178 (D.D.C. 2011) (quoting

Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009)). A separate order of dismissal
accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: January

~5, 2013

United States District Judge

2