Moore v. U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona ( 2010 )

FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MAR 1 6 2010
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NANCY MAYER WHITIIN&TON, CLERK
U.S. DISTRICT C()(JflT
LARRY L. MOORE,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 10 0434
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiff's application to proceed in
forma pauperis and pro se complaint. The Court will grant the application, and will dismiss
the complaint. 1
Plaintiff states that he has filed cases in the United States District Court for the District
of Arizona, and he deems the performance of the assigned judge to be "slotful [sic] and
careless[.]" Compl. at 5. Plaintiff requests the transfer of all cases to this district "for
'special action' to be done by the court to review and or investigate" the matter. [d. at 7.
Assuming without deciding that plaintiff states a cognizable claim, the relief he
The Court notes that plaintiff already has accumulated two "strikes" under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Moore v. Futrell, No. 09-2093 (D. Ariz. Mar. 5, 2010) (dismissing
civil action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted); Moore v.
Hindmarch, No. 09-1461 (D. Ariz. Jan. 7,2010) (dismissing civil action for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted). He might earn two additional "strikes" in the near
future. See Moore v. Arpaio, No. 09-1492 (D. Ariz. Mar. 1,2010) (order dismissing
complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, but
allowing plaintiff 30 days within which to file an amended complaint); Moore v. Maricopa
County Sheriff's Office, No. 09-2232 (D. Ariz. Feb. 19, 2010) (order dismissing complaint
without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, but allowing
plaintiff 30 days within which to file an amended complaint). If plaintiff accumulates three
strikes, he will be barred from proceeding in forma pauperis unless he demonstrates that he is
under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.c. § 1915(g).
demands is not available. Federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and
"possess only that power conferred by Constitution and statute." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life
Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The powers conferred on the federal district courts do
not include the power to review the decisions of other district courts or to force other district
courts to act. See Johnson v. Camilletti, No. 09-1110, 2009 WL 1708802, at *1 (D.D.C. June
17, 2009) ("This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the proceedings of another
[district] court. "); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (conferring"jurisdiction of appeals from all final
decisions of the district courts of the United States" to the federal courts of appeals). "The
structure of the federal courts does not allow one judge of a district court to rule directly on the
legality of another district judge's judicial acts or to deny another district judge his or her
lawful jurisdiction." Dhalluin v. McKibben, 682 F. Supp. 1096, 1097 (D. Nev. 1988).
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
An Order consistent with this Memorandum is issued separately on this same date.
United States District Judge