Schneller v. Supreme Court

D.C. Circuit

Schneller v. Supreme Court

550 F. App'x 9

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 30, 2013

DocketNos. 13-5233, 13-5234

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 550 F. App'x 9 (Schneller v. Supreme Court) 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

Schneller v. Supreme Court, 550 F. App'x 9 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

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 the appellant. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed December 11, 2012, be affirmed. The district court correctly held it has no authority to order the Clerk of the Supreme Court to accept appellant’s pleadings or to take any other action. See Marin v. Suter, 956 F.2d 339 (D.C.Cir.1992) (per curiam). Moreover, the district court properly exercised its discretion in denying reconsideration of the order dismissing the action with prejudice because appellant stated no basis for such relief, nor has he proferred any amendment to the complaint that would establish the district court’s jurisdiction. See Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208-09 (D.C.Cir.1996).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 the appellant. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed December 11, 2012, be affirmed. The district court correctly held it has no authority to order the Clerk of the Supreme Court to accept appellant’s pleadings or to take any other action. See Marin v. Suter, 956 F.2d 339 (D.C.Cir.1992) (per curiam). Moreover, the district court properly exercised its discretion in denying reconsideration of the order dismissing the action with prejudice because appellant stated no basis for such relief, nor has he proferred any amendment to the complaint that would establish the district court’s jurisdiction. See Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208-09 (D.C.Cir.1996).

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)

550 F. App'x 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schneller-v-supreme-court-cadc-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack