YELLOWBEAR v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ANDREW J. YELLOWBEAR, JR., 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 25-04589 (UNA)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a complaint and an application to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP). For the following reasons, the Court grants the IFP application and dismisses the
complaint.
Plaintiff, an enrolled member of the Northern Arapaho Tribe, is “incarcerated by the
Wyoming Department of Corrections at the Anamosa State Penitentiary in Iowa,” Compl., ECF
No. 1 at 2, as a result of his first-degree murder conviction in state court. See Yellowbear v. Atty.
Gen. of Wyoming, 380 F. App’x 740, 742 (10th Cir. 2010) (citing Yellowbear v. State, 174 P.3d
1270, 1273 (Wyo. 2008)). 	Plaintiff contends, as he has before, that 28 U.S.C. Ҥ 2254(d)(1) is
unconstitutional, at least as applied to him,” id., and he seeks a declaratory judgment stating as
much, Compl. at 5-6. Specifically, Plaintiff wants this Court to declare unconstitutional “sections
of the highly restrictive Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996” that “effectively
impeded his rights to assert” arguments during habeas proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 about
“the proper construction and effect of Treaty’s [sic], Acts of Congress, Federal Statutes, and
provisions of the U.S. Constitution that pertain to exclusive Federal Jurisdiction on the Wind River
Indian Reservation” in Wyoming. Compl. at 1.
Case 1:25-cv-04589-UNA Document 6 Filed 04/28/26 Page 1 of 2

2
The “availability of declaratory relief presupposes the existence of a judicially remediable
right” not established here.1 Ali v. Rumsfeld, 649 F.3d 762, 778 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (cleaned up). As
recounted in the Complaint, Plaintiff has adjudicated “his jurisdictional claim” via § 2254
proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming and on appeal to the Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals. Compl. at 3-4. This Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to review
the decisions of those courts. See Sanders v. United States, 184 F. App’x 13, 14 (D.C. Cir. 2006)
(per curiam) (“The district court correctly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review decisions
of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.”); Atchison v. U.S. District Courts,
190 F. Supp. 3d 78, 88 (D.D.C. 2016) (“[T]his Court has no subject matter jurisdiction to
reconsider the decisions of other federal district courts.”) (collecting cases)).
Plaintiff has not “alleged a cognizable cause of action and therefore [has] no basis upon
which to seek declaratory relief.” Ali, 649 F.3d at 778. Since no “allegation of other facts” could
possibly cure this deficiency, Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 1996), the
complaint will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
_________/s/____________
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
Date: April 28, 2026 	United States District Judge
1 	This action is titled “Complaint Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331(a).” Section 1331 generally
confers in the district courts original jurisdiction over actions presenting a federal question. But
“[f]or a case to raise a federal question within the scope [of § 1331], it must implicate some
provision of substantive federal law.” Youkelsone v. FDIC, 560 F. App’x. 4, 5 (D.C. Cir. 2014)
(per curiam). The Declaratory Judgment Act creates a remedy “[i]n a case of actual controversy
within” a court’s jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. 2201(a). It does not “provide a cause of action” nor “an
independent source of federal jurisdiction.” Ali, 649 F.3d at 778 (cleaned up).
Case 1:25-cv-04589-UNA Document 6 Filed 04/28/26 Page 2 of 2