# U n i te d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A p pe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 20-5246 September Term, 2020 1: 20-c v -008 67-UNA Filed O n: May25 , 20 21 Scot t Sa ttler, App ellant
v . United Sta tes De partm entof Justice , etal., App ellees
ON A PPE A L FROM THE UNITED STA TES DIS TRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: Pillard an d W alker, Circuit Ju dges, a nd Sen telle, Sen ior Circuit

Judge J U D G M E N T T his ap pea l w as 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, which includ es a m otion to a ppo int co unse l. Se e Fe d. R. App . P. 34 (a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 3 4(j). It is ORDERED tha t th e m otion for ap poin tm entof cou nsel b e d enie d. In civil cases, app ellant s are noten titled to a ppo intm entof cou nsel when the y

ha v e n ot d em onst rated suf f icient likeliho od of

succe ss on the m erits. I t is FURTHER ORDERED A ND A DJUDGED tha t th e d istrict court’s o rders en tered June 9, 202 0, a nd July 21, 2 020 , be af f irmed . A ppe llant h as n ot sh own thatthe district court erred in dism issing the ca se without prejud ice for failure t o co mp ly w ith Fe dera l Rule o f Civ il Proced ure 8 (a) and for lack o f subject m atte r jurisdiction. Ap pellan t’s com plaintdid notset forth “a sho rt an d p lain sta tem entof the ground s for th e co urt’s jurisdiction” o r “a sho rt an d p lain sta tem entof the claim sho w ing thatthe plea der is ent itled t o relief .” Se e Fe d. R. Civ . P. 8(a); A shcroft v. Iqbal, 55 6 U.S . 66 2, 6 78 (200 9) (A com plainttha t of

fers on ly “labe ls and con clusions” t hatare notsup porte d b y factu al allegation s do es n ot sa tisf y Rule 8 (a)'s plea ding requireme nts.). Ad dition ally , ap pellan t failed to p lead facts t o e stab lish his sta ndin g to sue , an d “th e d efect o f stan ding is a

# U n i te d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A p pe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 20-5246 September Term, 2020
def ect in subject m atte r jurisdiction.” Haase v. Session s, 83 5 F.2 d 9 02, 90 6 (D.C. Cir. 198 7). A ppe llant h as failed to e stab lish stan ding be cause he ha s no t ple d a ny actua l or imm inen t injury aside f rom, at best , a generalized griev ance . W arth v . Se ldin, 4 22 U.S. 490 , 49 9 (19 75) (“W hen the asse rted harm is a ‘gene raliz ed gr ievance’ sha red in subst ant ially

equal m easu re by all or a large class of citiz ens, tha t ha rm a lone no rmally doe s no t warrantexercise of jurisdiction .”). Moreover, ap pellan t ha s failed to p resen t an y argume nt o n a ppe al cha llenging the district co urt’s de nial o f his m otion to alter o r am end the judgm entan d h as th erefore forfeited an y

such argume nt. Se e, e .g., U.S. ex rel. To tten v. Bom bard ier Corp., 380 F.3d 48 8, 4 97 (D.C. Cir 2004 ). 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