Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-24-05035/USCOURTS-caDC-24-05035-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 24-5035 September Term, 2023

1:23-cv-03759-UNA

Filed On: August 14, 2024

Arthur Lee Hairston, Sr.,

Appellant

v.

Amanda L. Meredith, Judge, et al.,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Katsas, Rao, and Childs, Circuit Judges

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). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order entered February 7,

2024, be affirmed. Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its

discretion in dismissing appellant’s case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) as duplicative of

two cases previously filed by appellant and dismissed by the district court. See Crisafi

v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (holding that a complaint that “merely

repeats pending or previously litigated claims” may be subject to dismissal); see also

United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2004)

(holding that arguments not raised on appeal are forfeited). 

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

USCA Case #24-5035 Document #2070111 Filed: 08/14/2024 Page 1 of 1