Court Opinion

ID: 9896754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 16:01:23.085632+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:07.986293
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 22-5326                                                September Term, 2023
                                                                     1:22-cv-02375-UNA
                                                      Filed On: November 14, 2023
Harry Nie,

              Appellant

      v.

Rebecca Beach Smith, Judge, et al.,

              Appellees

             ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                       FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

      BEFORE:       Henderson, Pillard, and Pan, Circuit Judges

                                    JUDGMENT

        This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.
34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

        ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed October 24,
2022 be affirmed. The district court correctly concluded that it lacks jurisdiction to
review the decisions of other federal courts. Smalls v. United States, 471 F.3d 186,
192 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Additionally, appellant is not entitled to the injunctive relief he
seeks, as appellate and post-judgment review of his conviction provided an adequate
remedy at law for his claims. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-44 (1971) (equitable
relief not available if an adequate remedy at law exists); Pugh v. Ashcroft, 116 Fed.
App’x 287, 288 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (holding that “equitable relief is available only in the
absence of adequate remedies at law” and the appellant had “an adequate legal
remedy for any judicial error or misconduct in the form of post-judgment proceedings in
the appropriate courts”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 22-5326                                                September Term, 2023

        Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.

                                       Per Curiam

                                                         FOR THE COURT:
                                                         Mark J. Langer, Clerk

                                                 BY:     /s/
                                                         Daniel J. Reidy
                                                         Deputy Clerk

                                          Page 2