Okechukwu Amadi v. Pamela Bondi

D.C. Circuit

Okechukwu Amadi v. Pamela Bondi

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 4, 2025

Docket24-5284

StatusUnpublished

This text of Okechukwu Amadi v. Pamela Bondi (Okechukwu Amadi v. Pamela Bondi) 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

Okechukwu Amadi v. Pamela Bondi, (D.C. Cir. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 24-5284 September Term, 2024 1:24-cv-02362-UNA Filed On: June 4, 2025 Okechukwu Amadi,

Appellant

v.

Pamela Bondi, Attorney General, et al.,

Appellees

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

BEFORE: Pillard, Katsas, and Rao, 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. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing and the motion to appoint counsel, it is

ORDERED that the motion to appoint 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 November 22, 2024 order be affirmed. The district court correctly concluded that appellant had shown neither a clear right to relief nor that the U.S. Department of Justice had a clear duty to act. See Row 1 Inc. v. Becerra, 92 F.4th 1138, 1149 (D.C. Cir. 2024). Contrary to appellant’s assertions on appeal, 28 U.S.C. § 535 states only that the Attorney General may investigate government officials for alleged violations of criminal law and therefore does not establish a clear duty to act. And the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), is not relevant to this case. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 24-5284 September Term, 2024

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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/ Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk

Page 2

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

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 24-5284 September Term, 2024 1:24-cv-02362-UNA Filed On: June 4, 2025 Okechukwu Amadi,

Appellant

v.

Pamela Bondi, Attorney General, et al.,

Appellees

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

BEFORE: Pillard, Katsas, and Rao, 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. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing and the motion to appoint counsel, it is

ORDERED that the motion to appoint 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 November 22, 2024 order be affirmed. The district court correctly concluded that appellant had shown neither a clear right to relief nor that the U.S. Department of Justice had a clear duty to act. See Row 1 Inc. v. Becerra, 92 F.4th 1138, 1149 (D.C. Cir. 2024). Contrary to appellant’s assertions on appeal, 28 U.S.C. § 535 states only that the Attorney General may investigate government officials for alleged violations of criminal law and therefore does not establish a clear duty to act. And the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), is not relevant to this case. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 24-5284 September Term, 2024

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/ Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk

Page 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Okechukwu Amadi v. Pamela Bondi, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/okechukwu-amadi-v-pamela-bondi-cadc-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack