Leisure v. Mueller

D.C. Circuit

Leisure v. Mueller

101 F. App'x 838

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 28, 2004

DocketNo. 03-5242

StatusPublished

This text of 101 F. App'x 838 (Leisure v. Mueller) 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

Leisure v. Mueller, 101 F. App'x 838 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

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. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34®. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed August 14, 2003 be affirmed. The court correctly held that appellant lacks standing to pursue generalized grievances, see, e.g., Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 760, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984), and her assertion that appellee has targeted her personally is fanciful. See Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330-31 (D.C.Cir.1994); Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C.Cir.1981) (per curiam).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34®. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed August 14, 2003 be affirmed. The court correctly held that appellant lacks standing to pursue generalized grievances, see, e.g., Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 760, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984), and her assertion that appellee has targeted her personally is fanciful. See Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330-31 (D.C.Cir.1994); Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C.Cir.1981) (per curiam).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

101 F. App'x 838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leisure-v-mueller-cadc-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack