Jules v. Random House, Inc.

D.C. Circuit

Jules v. Random House, Inc.

226 F. App'x 6

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 31, 2007

DocketNo. 07-7016

StatusPublished

This text of 226 F. App'x 6 (Jules v. Random House, Inc.) 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

Jules v. Random House, Inc., 226 F. App'x 6 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

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, the supplement thereto, and the appendix 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 January 12, 2007, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), because the allegations lack an arguable basis either in law or fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). The complaint contains factual allegations that are so implausible as to be “fantastic or delusional.” Id. at 327-28, 109 S.Ct. 1827.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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, the supplement thereto, and the appendix 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 January 12, 2007, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the complaint sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), because the allegations lack an arguable basis either in law or fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). The complaint contains factual allegations that are so implausible as to be “fantastic or delusional.” Id. at 327-28, 109 S.Ct. 1827.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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)

226 F. App'x 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jules-v-random-house-inc-cadc-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack