Opinion
Case: 1:16-cv-02417
12-08-2016
Assigned To : Unassigned
Assign. Date : 12/9/2016
Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil (F Deck) MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se civil complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiff appears to demand a writ of mandamus to enjoin defendants from prosecuting him in the Florida courts. See Compl. at 2 (page numbers designated by the Court). Mandamus relief is proper only if "(1) the plaintiff has a clear right to relief; (2) the defendant has a clear duty to act; and (3) there is no other adequate remedy available to plaintiff." Council of and for the Blind of Delaware County Valley v. Regan, 709 F.2d 1521, 1533 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (en banc). The party seeking mandamus has the "burden of showing that [his] right to issuance of the writ is 'clear and indisputable.'" Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988) (citing Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 384 (1953)). This plaintiff addresses none of these elements, and thus fails to meet his burden. Furthermore, this Court is without authority to review, reverse, or otherwise interfere with proceedings in state courts. See, e.g., Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005) (barring "cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments"); Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); Stoller v. Ocwen Fin. Corp., 140 F. Supp. 3d 80, 83 (D.D.C. 2015) (abstaining from exercising jurisdiction over claim seeking to enjoin or void an Arizona state court foreclosure action).
Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. DATE: 12/8/16
/s/_________
United States District Judge