James Edward Price v. Sharon Pratt Kelly, Mayor

966 F.2d 702, 296 U.S. App. D.C. 182, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 23772, 1992 WL 132501
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedMay 6, 1992
Docket91-7113
StatusUnpublished

This text of 966 F.2d 702 (James Edward Price v. Sharon Pratt Kelly, Mayor) 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
James Edward Price v. Sharon Pratt Kelly, Mayor, 966 F.2d 702, 296 U.S. App. D.C. 182, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 23772, 1992 WL 132501 (D.C. Cir. 1992).

Opinion

966 F.2d 702

296 U.S.App.D.C. 182

NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.
James Edward PRICE, Appellant,
v.
Sharon Pratt KELLY, Mayor, et al.

No. 91-7113.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

May 6, 1992.

Before WALD, D.H. GINSBURG and SENTELLE, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of appellees' motion for summary affirmance, appellant's informal brief, appellant's motions for appointment of counsel and to provide appellant with transcript, the court's order to show cause and the responses thereto, it is

ORDERED that the court's order to show cause, dated September 11, 1991, be discharged. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that appellant's motion for appointment of counsel be denied. Appointment of counsel in a civil action is exceptional and wholly unwarranted when appellant has not demonstrated any likelihood of success on the merits. See D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 29 (1987). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that appellees' motion for summary affirmance be granted. As a fugitive from justice, appellant is not entitled to utilize the resources of this court. See Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 366 (1970); Doyle v. Department of Justice, 668 F.2d 1365 (D.C.Cir.1981) (per curiam), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1002 (1982). Appellant's disentitlement continues even though he was returned to custody before this appeal. See United States v. Parrish, 887 F.2d 1107 (D.C.Cir.1989). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to provide appellant with transcript be dimissed as moot.

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir.Rule 15.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Molinaro v. New Jersey
396 U.S. 365 (Supreme Court, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
966 F.2d 702, 296 U.S. App. D.C. 182, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 23772, 1992 WL 132501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-edward-price-v-sharon-pratt-kelly-mayor-cadc-1992.