Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-15-05219/USCOURTS-caDC-15-05219-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Freddie Lee Fountain
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 15-5219 September Term, 2015

1:15-cv-00814-UNA

Filed On: November 20, 2015

Freddie Lee Fountain,

Appellant

v.

United States of America,

Appellee

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Brown, Srinivasan, and Wilkins, 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). Upon consideration of the foregoing and the motion to

appoint counsel, it is

ORDERED that the motion to appoint 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 AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s June 2, 2015

order, dismissing appellant’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted, be affirmed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Attorney General’s authority to

control the course of government litigation is presumptively immune from judicial

review, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Reno, 56 F.3d 1476, 1480 (D.C. Cir. 1995), and

appellant has not rebutted the presumption. This court has stated that the United

Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment

or Punishment is not self-executing and creates no rights enforceable in U.S. courts.

Omar v. McHugh, 646 F.3d 13, 17 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Furthermore, the district court’s

USCA Case #15-5219 Document #1584552 Filed: 11/20/2015 Page 1 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 15-5219 September Term, 2015

dismissal of appellant’s complaint without leave to amend was appropriate because it is

clear appellant “cannot possibly win relief” under the facts and legal theories presented. 

Davis v. District of Columbia, 158 F.3d 1342, 1349 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (internal quotation

marks omitted). 

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

Page 2

USCA Case #15-5219 Document #1584552 Filed: 11/20/2015 Page 2 of 2