Ebrahimi v. Duffy

D.C. Circuit

Ebrahimi v. Duffy

1 F. App'x 2

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 18, 2001

DocketNo. 00-5140

StatusPublished

This text of 1 F. App'x 2 (Ebrahimi v. Duffy) 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

Ebrahimi v. Duffy, 1 F. App'x 2 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

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 briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See Fed. R. App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed March 31, 2000 be affirmed. Appellant presents no arguments regarding the propriety of the order on review. In any event, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s second motion to reopen, which made no arguments undermining the district court’s dismissal, without prejudice, of appellant’s complaint. See Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 263 n. 7, 98 S. Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (denial of Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment reviewed for abuse of discretion); see also Murray v. District of Columbia, 52 F.3d 353, 355 (D.C.Cir.1995) (movant must demonstrate it has potentially meritorious claim or defense as “precondition” to relief under Rule 60(b)).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition 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 briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See Fed. R. App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed March 31, 2000 be affirmed. Appellant presents no arguments regarding the propriety of the order on review. In any event, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s second motion to reopen, which made no arguments undermining the district court’s dismissal, without prejudice, of appellant’s complaint. See Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 263 n. 7, 98 S. Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (denial of Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment reviewed for abuse of discretion); see also Murray v. District of Columbia, 52 F.3d 353, 355 (D.C.Cir.1995) (movant must demonstrate it has potentially meritorious claim or defense as “precondition” to relief under Rule 60(b)).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition 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)

1 F. App'x 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ebrahimi-v-duffy-cadc-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack