Nunn v. Sessions

696 F. App'x 518

• Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
• Decided: July 21, 2017
• Docket: No. 16-5305
• Status: Published

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). Upon consideration of the foregoing and the motion for appointment of counsel, it is

ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel be denied. In civil cases, appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. It is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed September 20, 2016, dismissing appellant’s complaint be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s complaint, because a government official’s decision whether to investigate and prosecute a case is within the absolute discretion of the Executive Branch. See, e.g., United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974); Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Pierce, 786 F.2d 1199, 1201 (D.C. Cir. 1986).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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