Case Name: Jose H. CALDERON, Appellant v. Eric BROWN, Judge, Franklin County, et al., Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-07-26
Citations: 671 F. App'x 804
Docket Number: No. 15-7029
Parties: Jose H. CALDERON, Appellant v. Eric BROWN, Judge, Franklin County, et al., Appellees.
Judges: BEFORE: Kavanaugh and Srinivasan, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 804–805

Head Matter:
Jose H. CALDERON, Appellant v. Eric BROWN, Judge, Franklin County, et al., Appellees.
No. 15-7029
September Term, 2015
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Filed: 07/26/2016
Jose H. Calderon, London, OH, Pro Se.
BEFORE: Kavanaugh and Srinivasan, 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 appellant's brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing and the motion to appoint counsel, it is
ORDERED that the motion to appoint counsel be denied. In civil cases, appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated any likelihood of success on the merits. It is
FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court's order, filed January 15, 2015, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the com plaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, on the grounds that: (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the decisions of another court, see D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelty Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923) (U.S. district courts have no jurisdiction over challenges to state court decisions); (2)' the judge was immune from suit for money damages, see Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9-10, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991); and (3) appellant's vague allegations against the two Ohio-based defendants did not meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), see Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir.2004).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.