Christina Clement v. Pamela Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
• Decided: March 19, 2025
• Docket: 24-5263
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 24-5263 September Term, 2024 1:24-cv-00479-RC Filed On: March 19, 2025 Christina Clement, also known as HH Empress Queen Christina Locs is Our Artifact of Faith,

Appellant

v.

Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States, et al.,

Appellees

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

BEFORE: Childs, Pan, and Garcia, Circuit Judges

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, the motions to expedite and the alternative request for mandamus relief, and the motion for an injunction, it is

ORDERED that the motions to expedite, including the alternative request for mandamus relief, be dismissed as moot. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for an injunction be denied. Appellant has not demonstrated an entitlement to the requested relief. It is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s October 28, 2024 order dismissing without prejudice appellant’s claims and the district court’s November 12, 2024 minute order denying reconsideration be affirmed. This court “may affirm the district court on any ground supported by the record.” Chambers v. Burwell, 824 F.3d 141, 143 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Dismissal was appropriate because appellant’s United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 24-5263 September Term, 2024

complaint did not comply with the pleading standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and appellant has not demonstrated that reconsideration was warranted under the circumstances. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 669-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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: Clifton B. Cislak, Clerk

BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk

Page 2