Rosados v. Obama

District of Columbia

Rosados v. Obama

701 F. App'x 5

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedOctober 18, 2017

DocketNo. 17-5137

StatusPublished

This text of 701 F. App'x 5 (Rosados v. Obama) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rosados v. Obama, 701 F. App'x 5 (D.D.C. 2017).

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 brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order, filed April 27, 2017, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See, e.g., Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). Because the allegations in the complaint are “ ‘patently insubstantial,’ presenting no federal question suitable for decision,” the district court correctly determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994)).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order, filed April 27, 2017, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See, e.g., Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). Because the allegations in the complaint are “ ‘patently insubstantial,’ presenting no federal question suitable for decision,” the district court correctly determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994)).

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)

701 F. App'x 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosados-v-obama-dcd-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack