UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
January 21, 2010
KENNETH SMITH, PLAINTIFF,
HON. CLARENCE THOMAS, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: John D. Bates United States District Judge
Before the Court is  defendants' motion to dismiss Mr. Smith's complaint. Mr. Smith seeks "a mandate from this Court requiring the Justices of the United States Supreme Court to hear all petitions brought to that body under a writ of error or in the alternative, a formal declaration that the Bill of Rights is null and void for want of meaningful enforcement." Compl. at p. 3. He also has filed an "Emergency Motion for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief", which seeks the same relief. See Pl.'s Emergency Mot. for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [Docket Entry 2].
The Court cannot grant the requested relief, however, because it lacks jurisdiction to compel official action by the Justices of the United States Supreme Court. "[I]t seems axiomatic that a lower court may not order the judges or officers of a higher court to take an action." Panko v. Rodak, 606 F.2d 168, 171 n.6 (7th Cir. 1979); accord In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (citing Panko). That the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus also disposes of Mr. Smith's request for declaratory relief. A declaratory judgment is available only "[i]n a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). The absence of jurisdiction here renders declaratory relief unavailable. Therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED and Mr. Smith's complaint is DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED that  Mr. Smith's emergency motion for declaratory and injunctive relief is DENIED as moot.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.