Opinion
Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-02450 (UNA)
11-26-2018
PAUL H. DEERING, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the court on its initial review of plaintiff's pro se complaint ("Compl.") and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis application and dismiss the case pursuant to pursuant to Fed. R Civ. P. 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Baker v. Director, U.S. Parole Com'n, 916 F.2d 725, 727 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (holding that a sua sponte dismissal is appropriate for failure to state a claim).
Plaintiff is a resident of Birmingham, England. Compl. at caption, 3. He is aggrieved regarding a claim he has filed with the Social Security Administration, which appears to be pending in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania office. Id. at 2, 4, 12-13. Plaintiff fails either to identify a "final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security," 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), or to allege sufficient facts from which the Commissioner may reasonably identify the decision being challenged. As such, the complaint is subject to dismissal under Fed. R Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff's motion for CM/ECF password will be denied as moot.
Plaintiff also files a motion for relief from judgment ("Mot. Rel."). That motion seeks review of decisions rendered by Oakland County Circuit Court, located in Pontiac, Michigan. Mot. Rel. at 3-4. As a general rule, applicable here, a federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review or interfere with the decisions of a state court. See Richardson v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 83 F.3d 1513, 1514 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (citing District of Columbia v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983) and Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), aff'd, No. 94-5079, 1994 WL 474995 (D.C. Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1150 (1.995)). Therefore, plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment will be denied. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
/s/_________
United States District Judge Date: November 26, 2018