# U n i ted S ta 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. 22-7071 September Term, 2022 1: 21-cv -026 83-UNA Filed O n: Octob er 31 , 20 22 Mark K. B owser, Jr.,

App ellant
v . DC Departm entof

Correction s, etal., App ellees ON A PPE A L FROM THE UNITED STA TES DIS TRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: Hend erson , W ilkins, an d P an, 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 March 30, 20 22, be af f irmed . T his cou rt ma y af f irm th e d istrict court’s d ismissal o rder “on an y ba sis supp orted by the record, even if dif feren t f rom the ground s the district co urt cite d.” Parsi v. Daioleslam , 77 8 F.3 d 1 16, 12 6 (D.C. Cir. 20 15). By order f iled Novem ber 8 , 202 1, t he district cou rt directe d a ppe llant t o f ile w ithin 3 0 d ays an a me nde d co mp laint correcting several de f iciencies in his o rig inal co mp laint. Ap pellan t attach ed to h is not ice of ap pea l an am end ed com plainttha t he att em pte d to f ile, th ough h e im prop erly m ailed the am end ed com plaintdirectly to th e d istrict judge rath er th an to t he district cou rt clerk. See D.D.C. LCvR 5.1(a). Even if the district co urt h ad consid ered this a me nde d com plaintprior to dism issing the ca se, h owever, th e a me nde d co mp laint st ill fa iled to com ply w ith th e d istrict court’s inst ruction to iden tif y “the claim s [ap pellan t] int end s to bring, includ ing w hat , if an y rig hts h ave bee n violated , an d u nde r w hatspe cific legal aut hority” those claims arise. 11/ 8/2 1 D. Ct. Orde r; see Grah am v. Conno r, 49 0 U.S

. 386 , 39 4 (19 89) (“T he f irst inquiry in a ny § 19 83 suit is to isolate the precise const itution al violation with w hich [ the de fend ant] is cha rg ed. ”) (ci tatio n a nd intern al quotat ion m arks om itted ) (alteratio n in origi nal). Conse quently, beca use app ellant ’s am end ed com plaintdo es n ot a rticulate w hich o f his co nstitu tiona l rig hts a re atissue in this ca se, a nd how the defend ant s’ alleged co ndu ct violated tho se rights, h e h as n ot

# U n i ted S ta 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. 22-7071 September Term, 2022
shown tha t th e d istrict court’s d ismissal o f this ca se was an abu se o f discretio n. See Pet erson v. Archston e Cm ties. L LC, 6 37 F.3d 41 6, 4 18 (D.C. Cir. 2011 ); see also Jam es V . Hurson Asso cs., In c. v. Glickman , 22 9 F.3 d 2 77, 28 3 (D.C. Cir. 20 00) (“[A] district cou rt ne ed notbe m ade to recon sider a n a me nde d co mp laint t hatfails to state a claim upo n which relief cou ld be granted , or t hatwould oth erw ise fail as a m atte r of law .”). 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