Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-20-05211/USCOURTS-caDC-20-05211-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eric E. Taylor
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 20-5211 September Term, 2020

1:20-mc-00001-UNA

Filed On: November 9, 2020

In re: Eric E. Taylor,

Appellant

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Henderson, Rogers, and Walker, 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, filed June 12, 2020,

be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the case as frivolous and for failure to

state a claim on which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii);

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (“[A] complaint . . . is frivolous where it

lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

(2009) (“A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550

U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 #20-5211 Document #1870218 Filed: 11/09/2020 Page 1 of 1