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

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 21-5287 September Term, 2022 1: 21-c v -011 84-TNM Filed O n: Janu ary6, 202 3 Hasseh El Be y , Chief ,

App ellant
v . Ken net h Micha el Mea d, e t al.,

App ellees ON A PPE A L FROM THE UNITED STA TES DIS TRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: Mill ett, Pillard, a nd Pan , 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 briefs f iled b y the pa rties. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P

. 34(a )(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34 (j). Upon consid eratio n o f the foregoing, an d th e m otion for leave to f ile an ap pen dix, it is ORDERED tha t th e mo tion for lea v e to f ile an ap pen dix be grante d. T he Clerk is directe d to f ile the lodged ap pen dix. It is FURTHER ORDERED A ND A DJUDGED tha t th e d istrict court’s o rders f iled o n May20 , 20 21, Au gust 27 , 20 21, Octo ber 2 6, 2 021 , an d Dece mb er 8, 20 21 be af f irmed

. App ellantha s no t de mo nstrat ed tha t th e d istrict court e rred in d enying his mo tion for recusa l. Se e L iteky v . Unite d S tate s, 51 0 U.S . 54 0, 5 55 (199 4) (“judicial rulings alon e alm ost n ever constitu te a valid basis for a bias o r partiality mo tion”); Raf ferty v . NYNEX Corp., 60 F.3d 84 4, 8 48 (D.C. Cir.1995 ) (no b ias sho w n where p arty fa iled to of fer evidence to su ppo rt his inferred b ias f rom unfavorable ju dicial rulings an d f rom court dela ys). Add itiona lly , th e d istrict court co rrectly dism issed t he com plaintfor lack o f stan ding be cause ap pellan t failed to d em onst rate tha t he suf fered an injury- in-fact t hat was ca usally conne cted to app ellees’ co ndu ct an d was likely to be redresse d b y

the relief he requeste d. See Lu jan v. Defend ers of W ildlife , 50 4 U.S . 55 5, 5 60– 61 (199 2); Daimle rChrysler Corp. v. Cuno , 54 7 U.S . 33 2, 3 42 (200 6). A ppe llant h as a lso failed to esta blish th e right to sue on be half of a t hird p arty. See Po wers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 ,

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

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 21-5287 September Term, 2022
411 (199 1) (certain plain tif fs ha v e sta ndin g to pro tect a th ird pa rty ’s rig hts when plaint if f has suf fered an “injury

in fact,” p laintif

f “has a close relatio nship ” to t he third p arty, and the re is “som e h indran ce to the third party’s ability ” to p rotectits own inte rests). Before rea ching the issue of ap pellan t’s stan ding, th e d istrict court d ismissed the Fede ral Bure au of

Investigation and Blake Vo gt for ine f fective serv ice of

proce ss. T he dism issal as t o th ose defend ant s is af f irmed on the alte rnative ground tha t ap pellan t lacks sta ndin g, for th e rea son state d a bove. S ee Cham bers v. Burwell, 824 F.3d 14 1, 143 (D.C. Cir. 201 6) (this co urt “m ay af f irm th e d istrict court o n a ny g roun d su ppo rted by the re cord”). In a dditio n, a ppe llant h as sh own no e rror in the district co urt’s de cision to dism iss the com plaintw ith p rejudice . A ppe llant ra ises no argume nt ch allenging the district court’s co nclusion tha t an y am end me nt o f

his co mp laint would b e f utile. Acco rdingly , he has forfeited an y

such argume nt. Se e Unite d S tate s ex rel. T otte n v. Bom bard ier Corp., 380 F.3d 48 8, 4 97 (D.C. Cir. 2004 ) (arg um ent s no t raised on ap pea l are forfeited ). Alth ough a ppe llant ch allenges t he district cou rt’s alterna tiv e co nclusion tha t the District of

Colum bia would n ot b e a prop er venue , th e d ismissal o f the com plaint w ith p rejudice did notde pen d o n th at d ete rmina tion. Finally , ap pellan t ha s failed to d em onst rate tha t th e d enia l of his m otion for recon siderat ion was an ab use of discretio n. See Fireston e v. Firestone , 76 F.3d 12 05, 120 8 (D.C. Cir. 19 96). 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

Page 2