Court Opinion

ID: 8440482
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-04 18:01:50.845404+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:48:48.409170
License: Public Domain

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 filed by the 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 entered March 31, 2011, be affirmed. The district court correctly determined appellant failed to state a claim -with respect to the quo warranto relief he requested. The court also correctly determined that to the extent appellant may be challenging his confinement, he must do so in the district in which he is incarcerated. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442, 124 S.Ct. 2711, 159 L.Ed.2d 513 (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Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.