Andrew Straw v. Frivolous, Per Federal Law

• Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
• Decided: August 24, 2022
• Docket: 22-7068
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 22-7068 September Term, 2021 1:22-cv-00868-UNA Filed On: August 24, 2022 Andrew U.D. Straw,

Appellant

v.

Frivolous, Per Federal Law,

Appellee

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Katsas and Rao, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing and the Rule 28(j) letters, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed April 18, 2022, be affirmed. The district court correctly dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 94 (1968) (“[T]he judicial power of federal courts is constitutionally restricted to ‘cases’ and ‘controversies.’”); Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co. v. FERC, 783 F.3d 1270, 1274 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (“To satisfy the firmly established Article III case or controversy requirement, ‘there must be a live controversy at the time’ we review the case.”).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk