Matthew Heaven v. John Doe 1

• Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
• Decided: November 3, 2025
• Docket: 25-5212
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-5212 September Term, 2025 1:25-cv-01214-UNA Filed On: November 3, 2025 Matthew Heaven,

Appellant

v.

John Doe #1, FBI Supervisor, et al.,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Millett, Pillard, and Garcia, Circuit Judges

JUDGMENT

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, which includes a motion to supplement the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing and the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, it is

ORDERED that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis be dismissed as moot because appellant’s in forma pauperis status carries over to this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to supplement the record be denied. Appellant has not shown that supplementation of the record on appeal is appropriate under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(e)(2)(C) or that it “would establish beyond any doubt the proper resolution of the pending issues” or otherwise would be “in the interests of justice,” Colbert v. Potter, 471 F.3d 158, 165-66 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). It is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s May 14, 2025 order dismissing the case be affirmed. The district court correctly concluded that appellant’s complaint was frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Additionally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying as moot appellant’s motion to correct a clerical error, because even with the requested corrections, the United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-5212 September Term, 2025

complaint would not have asserted any non-frivolous claims. See Hettinga v. United States, 677 F.3d 471, 480 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (district court may deny motion to amend complaint where amendment would be “futile”).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT: Clifton B. Cislak, Clerk

BY: /s/ Michael C. McGrail Deputy Clerk

Page 2