Case Name: Barry HUTCHINS, Appellant v. DEPARTMENT OF DISABILITY, et al., Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-21
Citations: 686 F. App'x 7
Docket Number: No. 16-5302
Parties: Barry HUTCHINS, Appellant v. DEPARTMENT OF DISABILITY, et al., Appellees
Judges: BEFORE: Henderson and Brown, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 686
Pages: 7–8

Head Matter:
Barry HUTCHINS, Appellant v. DEPARTMENT OF DISABILITY, et al., Appellees
No. 16-5302
September Term, 2016
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Filed On: February 21, 2017
Barry Hutchins, Pro Se
R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney’s Office, (USA) Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee
BEFORE: Henderson and Brown, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

Opinion:
JUDGMENT
Per Curiam
This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief and appendix filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing and the motion for appointment of counsel, it is
ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel be denied. In civil cases, appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. It is
FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court's order entered August 26, 2016, be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing appellant's complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," in order to "give the defendant fair notice of what the . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The dismissal without prejudice allows appellant to file a new complaint that complies with Rule 8(a).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.