Court Opinion

ID: 9965329
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-02 13:01:16.335459+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:54.029971
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 23-5121                                                September Term, 2023
                                                                     1:18-cv-00611-JMC
                                                      Filed On: May 2, 2024
Marne K. Mitskog,

             Appellant

      v.

United States Department of Justice, et al.,

             Appellees

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

      BEFORE:       Rao, Walker, and Garcia, Circuit Judges

                                    JUDGMENT

        This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. 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 order entered
May 12, 2023 be affirmed. Appellant has not argued that the district court erred in
dismissing her Privacy Act claims against the individual defendants, and she thus has
forfeited any such argument. See United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp.,
380 F.3d 488, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“Ordinarily, arguments that parties do not make on
appeal are deemed to have been waived.”). Additionally, the district court correctly
concluded that appellant’s Privacy Act claims against the agency defendants are time-
barred. Appellant’s claims arose in 2013, when she became aware of the agencies’
actions regarding her records, and she did not file suit until 2018, well past the
expiration of the two-year limitations period for Privacy Act claims. See 5 U.S.C.
§ 552a(g)(5). Appellant asserts as a general proposition that equitable tolling applies in
Privacy Act cases, but she has not sufficiently raised any argument that “despite all due
                 United States Court of Appeals
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                      ____________
No. 23-5121                                                 September Term, 2023

diligence,” she was “unable to obtain vital information bearing on the existence of [her]
claim,” see Chung v. Dep’t of Justice, 333 F.3d 273, 278-79 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (citation
omitted), or that a fear of retaliation warrants equitable tolling in this case. Accordingly,
she has forfeited any such arguments. See Al-Tamimi v. Adelson, 916 F.3d 1, 6 (D.C.
Cir. 2019) (“Mentioning an argument in the most skeletal way . . . is tantamount to
failing to raise it.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Twin Rivers Paper Co. LLC v.
SEC, 934 F.3d 607, 615 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (“[A]n argument is forfeited if the petitioners
were obscure on the issue in their opening brief and only warmed to the issue in their
reply brief.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

       The district court also correctly dismissed appellant’s claim under Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). “[T]here
is no Bivens action for First Amendment retaliation.” Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482,
499 (2022).

        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

                                           Page 2