Harper v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Harper v. United States

671 F. App'x 805

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJuly 26, 2016

DocketNo. 15-5229

StatusPublished

This text of 671 F. App'x 805 (Harper v. United States) 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

Harper v. United States, 671 F. App'x 805 (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 and the motion to appoint counsel, it is

ORDERED that the motion 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 21, 2015, dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, be affirmed. Appellant has provided no basis for overturning the district court’s decision: he failed to name any individual federal defendant as he must to bring a viable claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 397, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971); the United States did not waive sovereign immunity, see FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994); and appellant failed to exhaust the administra[806]*806tive remedies available before he filed suit, see DeBrew v. Atwood, 792 F.3d 118, 126 (D.C.Cir.2015).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 and the motion to appoint counsel, it is

ORDERED that the motion 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 21, 2015, dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, be affirmed. Appellant has provided no basis for overturning the district court’s decision: he failed to name any individual federal defendant as he must to bring a viable claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 397, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971); the United States did not waive sovereign immunity, see FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994); and appellant failed to exhaust the administra[806]*806tive remedies available before he filed suit, see DeBrew v. Atwood, 792 F.3d 118, 126 (D.C.Cir.2015).

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)

671 F. App'x 805, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harper-v-united-states-cadc-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack