Cohea v. United States

672 F. App'x 18

• Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
• Decided: December 12, 2016
• Docket: No. 12-5336
• Status: Published

Opinion

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 the appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing and the motion for appointment of counsel, it is

ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel be denied. In civil cases, appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. It is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order entered October 5, 2012, be affirmed. As the district court correctly determined, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by its own terms applies only to state actors, and, even liberally construed, the complaint provides no basis for individual liability under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). Nor did appellant state a claim for injunctive relief, or for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 or 42 U.S.C. § 1986. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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