WATKINS v. BOWSER et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________________
)
RONALD K. WATKINS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 26-cv-00198 (APM)
)
MURIEL BOWSER, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
_________________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The substance of Plaintiff Ronald K. Watkins’s suit is hard to decipher. So far as the court
can tell, he seeks to enforce a judgment that he secured in the D.C. courts against the District of
Columbia nearly 20 years ago. See Compl., ECF No. 1, at 2 (referencing the court’s “enforcement”
jurisdiction and citing Watkins v. District of Columbia, 944 A.2d 1077 (D.C. 2008)). Even if the
court has jurisdiction over this matter, the better course is to abstain from exercising it. See Reiman
v. Smith, 12 F.3d 222, 225 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (observing that “if this is indeed an action ‘merely’ to
enforce a judgment [of the D.C. Superior Court], then that might also tend to justify abstention”).
Plaintiff’s underlying suit was filed in the D.C. Superior Court over two decades ago, see Watkins,
944 A.2d at 1079, and the award in his favor on a D.C. statutory law claim was affirmed by the
D.C. Court of Appeals, see id. (noting claim under the D.C. Whistleblower Protection Act). In this
case, he advances no discernable federal claim. See generally Compl. For these reasons,
abstaining and dismissing this action is warranted. See Reiman, 12 F.3d at 224–25.
A final, appealable order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Case 1:26-cv-00198-APM Document 6 Filed 02/19/26 Page 1 of 2

Dated: February 19, 2026 Amit P. Mehta
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00198-APM Document 6 Filed 02/19/26 Page 2 of 2