DYSON v. BONDI et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
STEFANNIE DYSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PAM BONDI, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 25 - 4417 (UNA)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the court on consideration of Plaintiffs’ application to proceed in
forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and pro se complaint, ECF No. 1. The court will grant the application
to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
Plaintiff Stefannie Dyson is the subject of an order barring her from filing in the Northern
District of Illinois. See ECF No. 1, at 3, 6; 1 see also Executive Committee Order, In re Dyson,
No. 24-CV-11636 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 14, 2024). She has also filed another lawsuit in this district that
the court has already dismissed. ECF No. 4, Dyson v. Kendall et al., No. 25-CV-2299
(D.D.C. Aug. 31, 2025). Ms. Dyson alleges that, having been barred from proceeding in the
Northern District of Illinois, she filed a case in the District of Minnesota and paid the filing fee in
full, only to have the case be transferred to the Northern District of Illinois and then dismissed.
1 When citing ECF No. 1, the court uses the page numbers generated by CM/ECF, rather than any
internal pagination.
Case 1:25-cv-04417-UNA Document 4 Filed 02/10/26 Page 1 of 3

2
ECF No. 1, at 3.2 Ms. Dyson also expresses dissatisfaction with another case she filed in the
District of Minnesota in June 2025. See id. at 4.3
Plaintiff Mark Jones complains that a case he filed in the District of Minnesota was
dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) even though he is not a prisoner, and that the
judge in that case “falsely stated that subject-matter jurisdiction had been resolved in open court—
contrary to the record.” Id. at 4 (emphases removed).4
Plaintiffs allege that, due to the above-described actions, they “are now blackballed from
filing any claims in Illinois or Minnesota,” id. at 5, and are without access to the courts. They ask
this court to “[d]eclare unconstitutional” and “[v]acate” “all restricted-filer orders,” reinstate one
of their cases, order “immediate” review of their claims, and grant them CM/ECF access, among
other relief.
“A federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review decisions of other federal courts.”
Smalls v. United States, 471 F.3d 186, 192 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (citation omitted); see Nie v. Smith,
No. 22-CV-5326, 2023 WL 7537732, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 14, 2023) (per curiam) (“The district
court correctly concluded that it lacks jurisdiction to review the decisions of other federal courts.”);
Prentice v. U.S. Dist. Court for E. Dist. of Mi., S. Div., 307 F. App’x 460, 460 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
(per curiam) (“Because one district court has no jurisdiction to review the decision of another
2 See ECF No. 14, at 1, Dyson v. Ill. Dep’t of Children Family Servs., No. 25-CV-141 (D. Minn.
Mar. 3, 2025) (dismissing certain claims as frivolous and transferring the remaining claims to the
Northern District of Illinois under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)); ECF No. 26, Dyson v. Illinois Dep’t of
Children Family Servs., No. 25-CV-2477 (N.D. Ill. June 11, 2025) (applying the barring order).
3 See ECF Nos. 23, 24, Dyson v. Bartolomei, No. 25-CV-2296 (D. Minn. Sep. 26, 2025)
(dismissing case), appeal docketed, No. 25-3299 (8th Cir. Nov. 19, 2025).
4 See ECF No. 4, Jones v. Hennepin County Fourth Judicial District Court, No. 25-cv-0125
(D. Minn. Mar. 20, 2025), appeal dismissed, No. 25-2677 (8th Cir. Oct. 22, 2025).
Case 1:25-cv-04417-UNA Document 4 Filed 02/10/26 Page 2 of 3

3
district court, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia properly determined it lacked
jurisdiction to review action taken by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
(Southern Division).”); Jones v. U.S. Sup. Ct., No. 10-CV-0910, 2010 WL 2363678, at *1
(D.D.C. June 9, 2010) (“This court is not a reviewing court and cannot compel Supreme Court
justices or other Article III judges in this or other districts or circuits to act.”), aff’d sub nom. Jones
v. Sup. Ct. of U.S., 405 F. App’x 508 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (per curiam), aff’d, 563 U.S. 914 (2011).
Here, Plaintiffs ask this court to review the decisions of courts in the Northern District of Illinois
and the District of Minnesota. The court lacks jurisdiction over such requests and will accordingly
dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A separate order will issue.
LOREN L. ALIKHAN
United States District Judge
Date: February 9, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-04417-UNA Document 4 Filed 02/10/26 Page 3 of 3