Deyerberg v. Holder

D.C. Circuit

Deyerberg v. Holder

455 F. App'x 1

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 28, 2011

DocketNo. 11-5208

StatusPublished

This text of 455 F. App'x 1 (Deyerberg v. Holder) 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

Deyerberg v. Holder, 455 F. App'x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed May 26, 2011 and June 9, 2011 be affirmed. The court correctly held that it lacked jurisdiction over appellant’s claims because they were patently frivolous, suggested bizarre conspiracy theories, and were fantastic, delusional, and essentially fictitious. See, e.g., Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974); Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C.Cir.2009); 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Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed May 26, 2011 and June 9, 2011 be affirmed. The court correctly held that it lacked jurisdiction over appellant’s claims because they were patently frivolous, suggested bizarre conspiracy theories, and were fantastic, delusional, and essentially fictitious. See, e.g., Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974); Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C.Cir.2009); 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Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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)

455 F. App'x 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deyerberg-v-holder-cadc-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack