*1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Matthew Jones,

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has submitted a Complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application and will dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring dismissal of an action "at any time" the Court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction).

Plaintiff is a resident of Greenwood, Delaware. He sues a Delaware state court but for what acts is unclear from the rambling allegations comprising the complaint. Federal district courts, such as this, generally lack jurisdiction to review the decisions of other courts. See United States v. Choi, 818 F. Supp. 2d 79, 85 (D.D.C. 2011) (district courts "generally lack[] appellate jurisdiction over other judicial bodies, and cannot exercise appellate mandamus over other courts.") (citing Lewis v. Green, 629 F. Supp. 546, 553 (D.D.C.1986)); Fleming v. United States, 847 F. Supp. 170, 172 (D.D.C. 1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 1150 (1995) (noting that "[b]y filing a complaint in this Court against . . . judges who have done nothing more than their duty . . . Fleming has instituted a meritless action") (applying District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415,

*2 416 (1923)). Hence, this case will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this

Memorandum Opinion.

Date: February 16, 2017