Court Opinion

ID: 9890501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-13 14:00:39.819234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:20.110946
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                                  FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                           ____________
No. 23-5133                                                      September Term, 2023
                                                                          1:23-cv-01272-UNA
                                                            Filed On: October 13, 2023
Bobby E. Hazel,

                  Appellant

         v.

United States of America,

                  Appellee

------------------------------

Consolidated with 23-5156

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

         BEFORE:           Wilkins, Katsas, and Walker, 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). 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
sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. It is

       FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s May 18, 2023
and June 6, 2023 orders be affirmed. The district court did not err by dismissing
appellant’s constitutional tort claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”)
because they are barred by sovereign immunity. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471,
478 (1994). The district court also did not err by concluding that the United States has
not waived immunity for appellant’s emotional distress claims under the FTCA because
the government would not be liable to the claimant “as a private person” for refusing or
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 23-5133                                                September Term, 2023

failing to disclose a videotape as exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373
U.S. 83 (1963), or under the Freedom of Information Act. See Meyer, 510 U.S. at
477–78. Further, to the extent appellant attempted to raise claims pursuant to Bivens v.
Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 403 U.S. 388
(1971), these claims fail because the United States is not a proper Bivens defendant.
See Meyer, 510 U.S. at 484–86. To the extent appellant argues that he should have
been permitted to amend his Bivens claims to add individual defendants, he has
forfeited that argument by not raising it in the district court. See Keepseagle v. Perdue,
856 F.3d 1039, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 2017). Finally, the district court did not abuse its
discretion by denying reconsideration of its dismissal order, see Firestone v. Firestone,
76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996), because the government’s acknowledgment of an
administrative tort complaint under the FTCA does not waive sovereign immunity, see
GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901, 904–05 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

        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