Hurt v. District of Columbia Housing Authority

D.C. Circuit

Hurt v. District of Columbia Housing Authority

207 F. App'x 2

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 13, 2006

DocketNo. 06-7143

StatusPublished

This text of 207 F. App'x 2 (Hurt v. District of Columbia Housing Authority) 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

Hurt v. District of Columbia Housing Authority, 207 F. App'x 2 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

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, entered August 21, 2006, be affirmed. To the extent appellant asserts that appellee has violated the Eighth Amendment rights of his deceased mother, the district court properly determined that appellant lacks standing to pursue that claim. See Navegar, Inc. v. United States, 103 F.3d 994, 998 (D.C.Cir.1997). To the extent appellant is asserting that appellee violated appellant’s own Eighth Amendment rights, appellant has failed to state a cognizable claim for a violation of the Eighth Amendment because appellant is not a prisoner and he has not otherwise explained the applicability of the Eighth Amendment in this case. Cf. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 537 n. 16, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979) (Eighth Amendment applies to “sentenced inmates”). Accordingly, the dismissal, without prejudice, of appellant’s complaint is affirmed.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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, entered August 21, 2006, be affirmed. To the extent appellant asserts that appellee has violated the Eighth Amendment rights of his deceased mother, the district court properly determined that appellant lacks standing to pursue that claim. See Navegar, Inc. v. United States, 103 F.3d 994, 998 (D.C.Cir.1997). To the extent appellant is asserting that appellee violated appellant’s own Eighth Amendment rights, appellant has failed to state a cognizable claim for a violation of the Eighth Amendment because appellant is not a prisoner and he has not otherwise explained the applicability of the Eighth Amendment in this case. Cf. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 537 n. 16, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979) (Eighth Amendment applies to “sentenced inmates”). Accordingly, the dismissal, without prejudice, of appellant’s complaint is affirmed.

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)

207 F. App'x 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hurt-v-district-of-columbia-housing-authority-cadc-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack