The appellant, Donald Q. Smither, filed a pro se complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia challenging actions taken by judges of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The district court dismissed the claims without prejudice. Smither appealed, arguing that the dismissal was erroneous. The case was considered on the record and briefs filed by the appellant.
The panel addressed two primary grounds for the dismissal. First, regarding the challenge to actions by judges of another federal district, the court applied the principle that a federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review decisions of other federal courts, citing Klayman v. Rao. Second, the court reviewed the remaining claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court found that certain claims were identical to those previously brought in the Southern District of Texas. Furthermore, the court determined the complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The court noted that while pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards, they must still plead factual matter that permits the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct.
The district court's dismissal without prejudice remains in effect. The appellant is unable to proceed on these grounds absent new facts or a proper forum. The disposition is unpublished, and the mandate is withheld until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download