Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-20-05003/USCOURTS-caDC-20-05003-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Peter Gakuba
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 20-5003 September Term, 2019

1:19-cv-03300-UNA

Filed On: June 3, 2020

Peter Gakuba,

Appellant

v.

United States of America,

Appellee

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Henderson and Rao, 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 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 orders filed

November 12, 2019, and January 10, 2020, be affirmed. The district court properly

construed appellant’s complaint as a petition for writ of mandamus and dismissed the

petition on the ground that he had not shown a “clear and indisputable” right to the relief

requested. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289

(1988); see American Hosp. Ass’n v. Burwell, 812 F.3d 183, 189 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (A

threshold requirement of mandamus jurisdiction is that the government agency or

official have “a clear duty to act.”). Nor has appellant shown that the district court

abused its discretion in denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment. See, e.g.,

Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (per curiam).

USCA Case #20-5003 Document #1845467 Filed: 06/03/2020 Page 1 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 20-5003 September Term, 2019

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 #20-5003 Document #1845467 Filed: 06/03/2020 Page 2 of 2