Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-19-07056/USCOURTS-caDC-19-07056-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 19-7056 September Term, 2019

1:19-cv-01231-UNA

Filed On: January 14, 2020

Wendolyn Lee,

Appellant

v.

Christopher Craft and Amy Weirich,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Srinivasan and Katsas, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit

Judge

J U D G M E N T

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, the motion for

appointment of counsel, the “motion to amend with arguments,” the motion for removal,

the motions to amend, and the letters filed by appellant, 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 that the motion for removal be denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the “motion to amend with arguments” be granted to

the extent appellant seeks to supplement his appellate brief with the additional

arguments presented in his motion. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the remaining motions to amend be denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed May

8, 2019 be affirmed. Appellant has not shown that the district court abused its

discretion in dismissing the case without prejudice on the ground that the complaint

USCA Case #19-7056 Document #1823998 Filed: 01/14/2020 Page 1 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 19-7056 September Term, 2019

failed to allege facts sufficient to establish the court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the

case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) (“A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain

a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction . . . .”); Ciralsky v.

CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy 

Deputy Clerk

Page 2

USCA Case #19-7056 Document #1823998 Filed: 01/14/2020 Page 2 of 2