District Judge Eric Vitaliano

Although “not a model of clarity,” Simon’s pro se complaint sought to override previous decisions entered by various courts—including the U.S. Court of Appeals—as they related to his prior inmate accident compensation award. District court dismissed Simon’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as well as for being frivolous. Citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) the court observed that it lacks jurisdiction to review the decisions of the federal appellate courts. To the extent Simon sought to file a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, the court noted that he had twice done so, and lost, in the U.S. court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and more recently in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. As a result thereof, any challenge to Simon’s accident compensation award was barred as res judicata. Further, even if the court had jurisdiction and the res judicata doctrine did not bar Simon’s complaint, most defendants were entitled to judicial and/or sovereign immunity. The court warned Simon that continued filing of complaints related to his inmate accident compensation award will result in an order barring him from filing such claims absent the court’s prior permission.