# U n i ted S t a te s Cou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 21-5211 September Term, 2021 1: 21-cv -017 50-A PM Filed O n: Februa ry

24 , 20 22 Christoph er T hiem e,

App ellant
v . Merrick B. Garlan d, in his o f f icial capa city

as Atto rney Gene ral of

the United Sta tes, et a l., App ellees
ON A PPE A L FROM THE UNITED STA TES DIS TRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: W ilkins, Rao, an d Ja ckson, Circuit Jud ges J U D G M E N T T his ap pea l was co nside red o n th e reco rd f rom the United Sta tes District Cou rt for th e District of

Colum bia a nd on the brief f iled b y ap pellan t. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P

. 34(a )(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34 (j). It is ORDERED A ND A DJUDGED tha t th e d istrict court’s o rder f iled A ugust 3 , 20 21, dism issing appe llant’s co mp laint for lack o f jurisdiction , be af

f irmed . T he district cou rt correctly conclude d th at t he decla ratory relief ap pellan t sou ght was e ssent ially in th e nat ure o f ha bea s, an d m ust t here fore b e p ursue d in the district co urt th at im pose d th e und erly ing sente nce. Se e 2 8 U.S .C. § 225 5(a); se e a lso W illiams v. Hill , 74 F.3d 13 39, 134 0 (D.C. Cir. 19 96) (pe r curiam ) (noting th at it is “well-settled tha t a prisone r seekin g relief f rom his . . . se nte nce ma y no t bring an actio n” for injun ctive a nd decla ratory relief as a m ean s to challen ge his sen ten ce); L oBu e v. Christoph er, 8 2 F.3 d 1 081 , 10 83 (D.C. Cir. 1996 ) (rejecting ef forts to “ma nipu late the preclu sive e f fect o f ha bea s jurisdiction”). W ith resp ect t o a ppe llant’s a dditio nal cla im for prosp ective injunct ive o r ma nda mu s relief

ap plicable to f utu re crimina l prose cution s, ap pellan t ha s no t dem onst rated tha t he ha s stan ding to seek such prosp ective relief on his o w n b eha lf

. See Lujan v. Defend ers of W ildlife , 50 4 U.S . 55 5, 5 60-6 1 (19 92) (pa rty see king to esta blish sta ndin g mustsho w a “co ncrete an d p articularized” injury tha t is “likely

[to be ]

# U n i ted S t a te s Cou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 21-5211 September Term, 2021
redresse d b y

a favorable d ecision”). No r has he shown tha t he was a uth oriz ed to se ek such relief

on be half

of oth er pa rties. S ee 28 U.S.C. § 16 54; Geo rg iade s v. MartinT rig ona , 72 9 F.2 d 8 31, 83 4 (D.C. Cir. 19 84) (pro se p arty may not plea d o n b eha lf of oth er pa rties); Lo Bue , 82 F.3d at 108 5 (ho lding tha t pla intif fs “cann ot o vercom e th eir jurisdictiona l inf irmities . . . b y referen ce to the cha racteristics of pu tative class m em bers – a class u ncertif ied a t th e tim e th e jurisdictio nal issu e sh ould ha ve b een resolved”). Pursua nt t o D.C. Circuit Ru le 36 , th is dispo sition will no t be pu blished . T he Clerk is directe d to w ithho ld issua nce of the m and ate he rein u ntil seven d ays af ter reso lution of an y tim ely petition for rehe aring or pe tition for rehe aring en ban c. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P. 4 1(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41

. Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT: Mark J. La nger, Clerk BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Depu ty Cl erk

Page 2