United States District Court, District of Columbia
October 23, 2014
DALE B. ADAMS, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS et al, Defendants.
By Order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, plaintiff may not file more than one case in that district per calendar month, and he must pay a refundable bond of $50 to the Clerk of Court, among other conditions. See Compl., Attach. (Order, Adams v. U.S. Dep 't of Agric, No. 3:12-cv-3077 (W.D. Ark. Sept. 25, 2013)). In this action, the plaintiff appears to raise claims under the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution, see Id . ¶¶ 52-82 (Counts One through Four), and among other relief, he demands reversal of the decision rendered by the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, id. at 11 (page number designated by the Court), in another case, Adams v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 09-3054 (W.D. Ark. filed Aug. 4, 2009).
The complaint will be dismissed with prejudice because it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This federal district court has no jurisdiction to review the decision of another district. See Klayman v. Kollar-Kotelly, No. 12-5340, 2013 WL 2395909, at *1 (D.C. Cir. May 20, 2013) (per curiam) ("[T]his court has concluded that one district court does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of another district court or federal appellate court... or to take disciplinary action against other federal judges ... ."); Jones v. Supreme Court of the United States, 405 F.App'x 508 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (per curiam) ("The district court properly held that it lacked jurisdiction to review decisions of the United States Supreme Court, ... federal appellate courts, ... or other district courts ...."); Mason v. Kahn, No. 08-1146, 2008 WL 2630078, at *1 (D.D.C. June 30, 2008) ("This Court lacks jurisdiction to review either a sister district court's orders or a federal appeals court's orders or publication decisions.").
An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.