Case Name: Gerald HENNEGHAN and T.H., BY his Father Gerald HENNEGHAN, Appellants v. Muriel BOWSER, Mayor of the District of Columbia, et al., Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-21
Citations: 692 F. App'x 1
Docket Number: No. 17-7017 Consolidated with 17-7020
Parties: Gerald HENNEGHAN and T.H., BY his Father Gerald HENNEGHAN, Appellants v. Muriel BOWSER, Mayor of the District of Columbia, et al., Appellees
Judges: BEFORE: Griffith and Pillard, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 692
Pages: 1–2

Head Matter:
Gerald HENNEGHAN and T.H., BY his Father Gerald HENNEGHAN, Appellants v. Muriel BOWSER, Mayor of the District of Columbia, et al., Appellees
No. 17-7017 Consolidated with 17-7020
September Term, 2016
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Filed On: June 21, 2017
Rehearing En Banc Denied September 12, 2017
Gerald Henneghan, Pro Se
T.H., Pro Se
Loren L. AliKhan, Deputy Solicitor General, Office of the Attorney General, District of Columbia, Office of the Solicitor General, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees Muriel Bowser, District of Columbia, Raymond Davidson, Brenda Arnold, Lee Arthur Satterfield, Hiram Puig-Lugo, Zoe Bush, Jennifer Ann Di Toro, Tara Fentress, Noel Henry Johnson, Cathy L. Lanier, Peter Newsham
Annette Louise Johnson, Pro Se
BEFORE: Griffith and Pillard, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

Opinion:
JUDGMENT
Per Curiam
These appeals were considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief and appendix filed by appellants. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court's orders filed January 10 and January 26, 2017, be affirmed. The district court correctly held that this is not a true habeas action, see, e.g., Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Services Agency, 458 U.S. 502, 102 S.Ct. 3231, 73 L.Ed.2d 928 (1982), and the court did not err in dismissing appellants' case without prejudice after they failed to comply with the court's order to pay the fee due for a civil action or file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Appellants forfeit any challenge to the district court's sealing order and its denial of leave to file a motion for recusal and other relief, as they have not addressed those rulings in their brief and appendix. See, e.g., Petit v. United States Department of Education, 675 F.3d 769, 779 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.