Court Opinion

ID: 8683586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-25 06:39:53.778663+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:32.495121
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 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 April 27, 2017, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See, e.g., Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). Because the allegations in the complaint are “ ‘patently insubstantial,’ presenting no federal question suitable for decision,” the district court correctly determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.