LASSITER v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MASHIACH C. LASSITER, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-03620 (UNA)
)
DISTRICT OF 	)
COLUMBIA COURTS, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s pro se Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.”), ECF
No. 14, and his Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP App.”), ECF No. 2. The
Court grants Plaintiff’s IFP Application, and for the reasons explained below, it dismisses this
matter without prejudice.
Plaintiff sues the District of Columbia, the D.C. Superior Court, a D.C. Superior Court
Judge, and an attorney involved in proceedings in which Plaintiff was a party. See Am. Compl. at
1–3. Plaintiff alleges that several of his rights were violated due to various wrongs that occurred
during proceedings held before the D.C. Superior Court Family Division, including omnibus denial
of his motions and other requests, “procedural irregularities,” and miscalculation of his benefits.
See id. at 2–4; see also Complaint, ECF No. 1, at 2. 	He demands assorted declaratory and
injunctive relief reversing and denouncing the actions of the D.C. Superior Court in those
proceedings. See Am. Compl. at 4–5.
At root, Plaintiff demands that this Court review and intervene in a D.C. Superior Court
matter, but this the Court is without subject matter jurisdiction to do so. 	Federal district courts
generally lack jurisdiction to review or interfere with judicial decisions by state courts and local
Case 1:25-cv-03620-UNA Document 18 Filed 01/02/26 Page 1 of 2

bodies. Applicable here, the domestic relations exception specifically deprives a federal district
court of the power to issue or modify the determinations at issue. See Ankenbrandt v. Richards,
504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992); Bennett v. Bennett, 682 F.2d 1039, 1042 (D.C. Cir. 1982). 	In other
words, a family court’s decisions must be contested in the local courts where the proceedings were
held. See Bennett, at 682 F.2d at 1042–43. If Plaintiff seeks review of the propriety of the actions
of the D.C. Superior Court, such is the province of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. See
D.C. Ct. App. R. 4(a); D.C. Code § 11–721.
For these reasons, the Amended Complaint, ECF No. 14, and this case, are dismissed
without prejudice. Plaintiff’s other pending Motions, ECF Nos. 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 15, are all denied
as moot. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: January 2, 2026
/s/_________________________
ANA C. REYES
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-03620-UNA Document 18 Filed 01/02/26 Page 2 of 2