Dixon v. Smith State Prison

D.C. Circuit

Dixon v. Smith State Prison

692 F. App'x 2

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 21, 2017

DocketNo. 17-7040

StatusPublished

This text of 692 F. App'x 2 (Dixon v. Smith State Prison) 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

Dixon v. Smith State Prison, 692 F. App'x 2 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

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 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 order filed February 2, 2017, be affirmed. The court properly dismissed appellant’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the claims are “ ’patently insubstantial,’ presenting no [3]*3federal 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Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 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 order filed February 2, 2017, be affirmed. The court properly dismissed appellant’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the claims are “ ’patently insubstantial,’ presenting no [3]*3federal 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Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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)

692 F. App'x 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dixon-v-smith-state-prison-cadc-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack