Azubuko v. Woodlock ( 2020 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FILED
04/23/2020
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Columbia
Chukwuma E. Azubuko, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 19-3856 (UNA)
)
)
Douglas Preston Woodlock et al., )
)
Defendants. )
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 resides in Boston, Massachusetts. He has sued, among other individuals, United
States District Judges Douglas Woodlock and Richard G. Sterns in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts and United States Attorney for the District of
Massachusetts Andrew E. Lelling, in their official and individual capacities. See Compl.
1
Caption; Compl. Attachment 1. In addition, plaintiff has sued the U.S. Department of Treasury.
This lawsuit stems from “an alleged civil lawsuit against the Plaintiff,” over which Judge
Woodlock “roundly unlawfully presided.” Compl. at 1. Plaintiff alleges that his “income tax for
2017 and 2018 had been garnished” and “[t]he necessary Defendants in/directly contributed to
it.” Id. at 2. In 2018, plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the District of Massachusetts that “was
condemned to a miscellaneous docketing number” and “was dismissed without an issuance of
summons.” Id.; see Compl. Attachments 1-3. Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court to compel
defendants “to refund . . . his two federal’s income tax . . . unlawfully vulturically garnished
with reasonable interest in 2017 and 2018.” Compl. at 4. He also seeks at least $50 million in
compensatory and punitive damages. Id. at 5.
This federal district court is not a reviewing court and thus lacks jurisdiction to review
another court’s decisions and order it 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.”). Apart from the
jurisdictional barrier, the judicial defendants enjoy absolute immunity since, as the attachments
to the complaint show, this lawsuit is premised on their decisions rendered while presiding over
plaintiff’s civil case in their judicial district. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (per
curiam); see Miller v. Marriott Int’l LLC, 378 F. Supp. 3d 1, 7 (D.D.C. 2019) (a judge’s
“issuance of an order . . . is a quintessential judicial act for which [the judge] enjoys absolute
immunity”); Caldwell v. Obama, 6 F. Supp. 3d 31, 44 (D.D.C. 2013) (“The acts of assigning a
2
case, ruling on pretrial matters, and rendering a decision all fall within a judge’s judicial
capacity.”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
As for the remaining individual defendants purportedly sued in their individual
capacities, the complaint contains no factual allegations of misconduct nor facts about the
parties’ citizenship to consider diversity jurisdiction. See Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. v. K N
Energy, Inc., 498 U.S. 426, 428 (1991) (it is a “well-established rule” that in order for an action
to proceed in diversity, the citizenship requirement must be “assessed at the time the suit is
filed”). Therefore, this case will be dismissed. A separate order of dismissal accompanies this
Memorandum Opinion.
_________s/_____________
AMY BERMAN JACKSON
Date: April 22, 2020 United States District Judge
3