Benjamin Cunningham v. John Does

D.C. Circuit

Benjamin Cunningham v. John Does

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedOctober 30, 2020

Docket20-5040

StatusUnpublished

This text of Benjamin Cunningham v. John Does (Benjamin Cunningham v. John Does) 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

Benjamin Cunningham v. John Does, (D.C. Cir. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 20-5040 September Term, 2020 1:19-cv-02073-UNA Filed On: October 30, 2020 Benjamin Cunningham,

Appellant

v.

John Does, et al.,

Appellees

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

BEFORE: Henderson and Katsas, 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 briefs and appendices filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, and the exhibits and notices filed by appellant, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed November 13, 2019, November 27, 2019, and January 2, 2020, be affirmed. Appellant has not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction,” and “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-69 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Nor has appellant shown any abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of his motion to compel and his motion for reconsideration. See Ortiz-Diaz v. U.S. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev., Office of Inspector Gen., 867 F.3d 70, 74 (D.C. Cir. 2017); Owens v. Republic of Sudan, 864 F.3d 751, 818 (D.C. Cir. 2017). United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 20-5040 September Term, 2020

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

Page 2

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

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 20-5040 September Term, 2020 1:19-cv-02073-UNA Filed On: October 30, 2020 Benjamin Cunningham,

Appellant

v.

John Does, et al.,

Appellees

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

BEFORE: Henderson and Katsas, 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 briefs and appendices filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, and the exhibits and notices filed by appellant, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed November 13, 2019, November 27, 2019, and January 2, 2020, be affirmed. Appellant has not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction,” and “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-69 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Nor has appellant shown any abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of his motion to compel and his motion for reconsideration. See Ortiz-Diaz v. U.S. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev., Office of Inspector Gen., 867 F.3d 70, 74 (D.C. Cir. 2017); Owens v. Republic of Sudan, 864 F.3d 751, 818 (D.C. Cir. 2017). United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 20-5040 September Term, 2020

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

Page 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Benjamin Cunningham v. John Does, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benjamin-cunningham-v-john-does-cadc-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack