Andrews v. Ashcroft

D.C. Circuit

Andrews v. Ashcroft

123 F. App'x 408

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMarch 1, 2005

DocketNo. 04-5261

StatusPublished

This text of 123 F. App'x 408 (Andrews v. Ashcroft) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Andrews v. Ashcroft, 123 F. App'x 408 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

[409]*409 JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

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. RApp. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34Q). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed June 29, 2004, be affirmed as modified below. Appellees had no duty to intervene in appellant’s post-conviction proceeding, given the discretionary nature of their investigatory and prosecutorial duties. See, e.g., United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974); Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Pierce, 786 F.2d 1199, 1201 (D.C.Cir.1986). We therefore affirm the dismissal for failure to state a claim, but modify the district court’s order to reflect a dismissal with prejudice.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[409]*409 JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

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. RApp. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34Q). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed June 29, 2004, be affirmed as modified below. Appellees had no duty to intervene in appellant’s post-conviction proceeding, given the discretionary nature of their investigatory and prosecutorial duties. See, e.g., United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974); Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Pierce, 786 F.2d 1199, 1201 (D.C.Cir.1986). We therefore affirm the dismissal for failure to state a claim, but modify the district court’s order to reflect a dismissal with prejudice.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 F. App'x 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andrews-v-ashcroft-cadc-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack