Perkins v. Ashcroft

275 F. App'x 17
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided April 22, 2008·No. No. 07-5416·Published·Cited by 11 cases

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. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed November 8, 2007, be affirmed. Appellant has failed to state a claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and, to the extent appellant was attempting to sue the former Attorney General in his official capacity, the action is barred by sovereign immu[18]*18nity, see Clark v. Library of Congress, 750 F.2d 89,102-04 (D.C.Cir.1984).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

Perkins v. Ashcroft, 275 F. App'x 17 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

275 F. App'x 17 (Perkins v. Ashcroft) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Davis v. Wernick
District of Columbia, 2021
Boling v. U.S. Parole Comm'n
290 F. Supp. 3d 37 (D.C. Circuit, 2017)
Cornish v. United States of America
885 F. Supp. 2d 198 (District of Columbia, 2012)
Young v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
District of Columbia, 2011
Perkins v. Holder
District of Columbia, 2010
McAlister v. Potter
733 F. Supp. 2d 134 (District of Columbia, 2010)
Leitner v. United States
725 F. Supp. 2d 36 (District of Columbia, 2010)
Rivera v. Holder
District of Columbia, 2009
Ruiz Rivera v. Holder
666 F. Supp. 2d 82 (District of Columbia, 2009)