HILL v. FRANKLIN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS GENERAL DIVISION et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ANTHONY HILL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 25-3326 (UNA)
)
FRANKLIN COUNTY COURT OF, )
COMMON PLEAS, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
Memorandum Opinion
This matter is before the court on consideration of Plaintiff’s application to proceed in
forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, and pro se complaint, ECF No. 1. The court grants the application,
dismisses the complaint and this civil action without prejudice, and denies Plaintiff’s pending
motions, ECF Nos. 5–6, without prejudice as moot.
It appears that Plaintiff is litigating a matter in the Franklin County Court of Common
Pleas. According to the complaint, the presiding judges closed that case “without adjudication to
shield [defendants] from liability.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 1. Among other relief, Plaintiff demands a “Writ
of Mandamus compelling Franklin County Court to case fraud, enter a final order, and transmit
the full record for federal review.” Id. at 3 (page number designated by CM/ECF). The court
cannot do this.
As a general rule, a federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review the decisions of other
courts. See Richardson v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 83 F.3d 1513, 1514 (D.C. Cir.
1996) (explaining that “federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review judicial decisions by state
and District of Columbia courts”); United States v. Choi, 818 F. Supp. 2d 79, 85 (D.D.C. 2011)
Case 1:25-cv-03326-UNA Document 8 Filed 04/13/26 Page 1 of 2

2
(stating that district courts “generally lack[] appellate jurisdiction over other judicial bodies, and
cannot exercise appellate mandamus over other courts”).
Because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the complaint and this civil action must
be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.
/s/
AMIR H. ALI
United States District Judge
DATE: April 13, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-03326-UNA Document 8 Filed 04/13/26 Page 2 of 2