Dixon v. Smith State Prison

692 F. App'x 2
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided June 21, 2017·No. No. 17-7040·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 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Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

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

692 F. App'x 2 (Dixon v. Smith State Prison) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tooley v. Napolitano
556 F.3d 836 (D.C. Circuit, 2009)
Tony Best v. Sharon Pratt Kelly, Mayor
39 F.3d 328 (D.C. Circuit, 1994)