Custis v. Central Intelligence Agency

D.C. Circuit

Custis v. Central Intelligence Agency

650 F. App'x 46

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 20, 2016

DocketNo. 15-5234

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 650 F. App'x 46 (Custis v. Central Intelligence Agency) 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

Custis v. Central Intelligence Agency, 650 F. App'x 46 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on appellant’s brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, the motions to appoint counsel,' and the letter filed by appellant, it is ORDERED that the motions to appoint counsel be denied. In civil cases, appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated any likelihood of success on the merits. It is FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed July 30, 2015, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that it is “ ‘patently insubstantial,’ presenting no federal question suitable for decision.” Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994)).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on appellant’s brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, the motions to appoint counsel,' and the letter filed by appellant, it is ORDERED that the motions to appoint counsel be denied. In civil cases, appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated any likelihood of success on the merits. It is FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed July 30, 2015, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that it is “ ‘patently insubstantial,’ presenting no federal question suitable for decision.” Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994)).

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)

650 F. App'x 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/custis-v-central-intelligence-agency-cadc-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack