FULLER v. HARRIS et al
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re 2 Order dismissing the case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 5/12/2017. (lcjeb1)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Civil Action No. 17-876 (JEB)
SCOTT HARRIS, et al.,
Pro se Plaintiff Jancis Fuller, who is serving a 20-year sentence in Connecticut, brings
this case against Defendant Clerks of the United States Supreme Court, alleging that they
erroneously rejected her Petition for Writ of Certiorari as untimely in another civil matter. See
ECF No. 1 (Complaint). She asks that this Court thus “[e]nter an order compelling Defendant
Harris and Defendant Higgins . . . to accept and file” her petition at the Supreme Court, as well
as pay her court fees. Id. at 9. The Court will now dismiss this action for want of jurisdiction.
This result is compelled by binding case law. See, e.g., Griffin v. Apfel, 1999 WL
1029177, at *1 (D.D.C. June 18, 1999), aff’d, 203 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (dismissing an
identical claim). “This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review any decision of the
Supreme Court or its Clerk.” Id. (citing Marin v. Suter, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C. Cir. 1992)).
Indeed, it is “axiomatic that a lower court may not order the judges or officers of a higher court
to take an action.” Panko v. Rodak, 606 F.2d 168, 171 (7th Cir. 1979). As such, the Court
cannot offer Plaintiff any relief on her claim, and thus will issue a contemporaneous Order
dismissing the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
/s/ James E. Boasberg
JAMES E. BOASBERG
United States District Judge
Date: May 12, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?