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

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 23-7179 September Term, 2024 1: 23-c v -031 40-A PM Filed O n: Octob er 2, 20 24 Edwin L. Rojas, Fo rmer U.S . Hou se Represe nta tiv e, Ca lifo rnia 7 th District, Chairma n o f

Plan B Ne tw ork Se rv ices, App ellant Plan B Ne tw ork Se rv ices, In c.,

App ellee
v . Sta te o f Conn ecticut , etal., App ellees
ON A PPE A L FROM THE UNITED ST A TES DIS TRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: W ilkins, Rao, an d W alker, Circuit Jud ges 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 States District Court for th e District of

Colum bia a nd on the briefs f iled b y the parties. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P

. 34(a )(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upo n co nside ration of the foregoing, th e m otion to supp lem entthe record, the m otion to add a party, an d th e m otion s for an injun ction, it is ORDERED tha t th e m otion to supp lem entthe record be den ied. Ap pellan t ha s notsho w n th at su pple me ntation of the record on app eal is a ppro priate un der Fe dera l Rule o f Ap pellat e P roced ure 1 0(e)(2)(C). Nor has he shown tha t sup plem entation of the record “w ould establish b eyond a ny doub t th e p rope r resolutio n o f the pe ndin g issues” o r oth erw ise would be “in th e int erests of justice. ” Colbe rt v. Po tter, 471 F .3d 158 , 16 5-66 (D.C. Cir. 20 06) (citations o mitt ed). It is FURTHER ORDERED tha t th e m otion to add a party be d enie d. App ellantha s notsho w n th at “sp ecial circum stances” justif y ad ding a party on a ppe al. S ee Mullane y v. An derso n, 3 42 U.S. 4 15, 41 6-17 (195 2). I t is FURTHER ORDERED tha t th e m otion s for an injun ction be den ied. Ap pellan t has notsatisf ied t he stringent requirem ents for an injun ction pen ding ap pea l. Se e

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

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 23-7179 September Term, 2024
W inter v . Natu ral Res. De f . Cou ncil, In c., 5 55 U.S. 7 , 20 (200 8); D.C. Circuit Han dbo ok of Practice an d In terna l Proced ures 3 3 (20 21). It is FURTHER ORDERED A ND A DJUDGED tha t th e d istrict court’s Novem ber 8 , 202 3 o rder dism issing the ca se a nd Novembe r 30, 20 23 orde r den y ing reconsid eratio n be affirm ed. T he district cou rt correctly conclud ed tha t ap pellan t’s com plaintw as f riv olou s be cause it lacke d a n a rg uab le ba sis eithe r in law or in fact. Se e Neitzke v

. W illiams, 4 90 U.S. 3 19, 32 5 (19 89); see also 2 8 U.S .C. § 191 5(e)(2)(B)(i)(providing tha t “the cou rt sha ll dismiss t he case at a ny time if the cou rt de term ines t hat

. . . th e action or a ppe al . . . is f riv olou s or m alicious”). A dditio nally, ap pellan t ha s no t sho w n tha t th e d istrict court a buse d its discretion in d enying the m otion for recon siderat ion. See Sm alls v. Unite d S tates, 4 71 F.3d 18 6, 1 91 (D.C. Cir. 20 06). 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 after 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. 41 (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