# 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. 22-5207 September Term, 2022 1: 22-c v -006 99-A BJ Filed O n: Octob er 6, 20 22 Naum I. V olovets,

App ellant

v

. W illiam J. Clinton, Form er U.S. Preside nt a nd Kristina A . Kvien, Fo rmer Ch arge d' Af faires e.i. o f the U.S. Em bassy in Ukraine , App ellees

ON A PPE A L FROM THE UNITED STA TES DIS TRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: Pillard an d Rao , Circuit Jud ges, an d S ent elle, S enio r Circuit Judge 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 an d su pple me nt t here to f iled b y ap pellan t. See Fed . R. A pp. P. 34(a )(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34 (j). Upon consid eratio n o f the foregoing and the respo nse to t his cou rt’s order f iled o n A ugust 1 , 20 22, it is ORDERED A ND A DJUDGED tha t th e d istrict court o rder f iled Ju ne 22, 20 22, be af f irmed . T he district cou rt prop erly dism issed t he case base d o n a ppe llant’s failure t o iden tif y a valid ba sis for th e co urt’s jurisdiction . S ee Fed. R. Civ . P. 12 (h)(3). “It is axiomat ic tha t th e Unite d S tate s m ay not b e su ed w ithou t its co nsen t an d th at t he existence o f

con sentis a p rerequisite for jurisdiction .” Unite d S tate s v. Mi tche ll, 463 U.S. 2 06, 21 2 (19 83); see Clark v . Lib rary of Congress, 7 50 F.2d 89 , 10 3 (D.C. Cir. 198 4) (sovereig n im mu nity bars m one tary claims againstpu blic of f icials sued in th eir of f icial capa city

ab senta sp ecif ic waiver of imm unity). Inso far as app ellantsee ks mo net aryrelief , he ha s iden tif ied n o su ch waiver th at would a llow his claim s to go forward. An d inso far as he seeks relief ba sed on the pu rported “criminal” na ture of his allegation s, his su it fails be cause , as a p rivate pa rty , he can notbring claims und er criminal la w

or se ek to com pel t he criminal in v estigation or p rosecu tion of the defend ant s. S ee Lind a R.S . v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 , 61 9 (19 73) (“a p rivate citiz en lacks a judicially cogniz able inte rest in the prose cution or n onp rosecu tion of an oth er”);

# 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. 22-5207 September Term, 2022
Cmty. for Creative Non-Vio lence v. Pierce, 7 86 F.2d 11 99, 12 01 (D.C. Cir. 1986 ) (the power to d ecide w hen to investig ate an d p rosecu te lies in th e E xecut iv e B ranch an d judicial a uth orityis “non -ex istent ” w hen the cou rt is aske d to intrud e int o th e p rocess o f prose cuto rial decision ma king by a party w ithou t sta ndin g to raise the claim ). Furth er, the district co urt d id no t ab use its discretio n in den y ing leave to f ile a se cond am end ed com plaintbe cause ap pellan t ha s no t sho w n th e p rof fered am end me nt would h ave cured the jurisdiction al f laws in th e su it. S ee Firestone v. Firesto ne, 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

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

Page 2