Court Opinion

ID: 9386106
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-11 15:01:05.733649+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:27.582240
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                               FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                        ____________
No. 23-5011                                                   September Term, 2022
                                                                        1:22-cv-03683-JMC
                                                         Filed On: April 10, 2023
Friedrich Lu,

                Appellant

       v.

Julio A. Castillo, Clerk, et al.,

                Appellees

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

       BEFORE:         Pillard and Childs, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit
                       Judge

                                       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 for
injunction, it is

       ORDERED that the motion for injunction be denied. It is

        FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s December 22,
2022 order be affirmed. Appellant argues in his brief and in his motion that two motions
for preliminary injunctions that he either filed or attempted to file in district court should
have been granted. However, the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction
“merge[s]” into a final decision on the merits, Conecuh-Monroe Cmty. Action Agency v.
Bowen, 852 F.2d 581, 586 (D.C. Cir. 1988), and appellant has shown no error in the
district court’s dismissal of his claims. He has identified no federal right enforceable
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to file an amicus brief, and he has forfeited any challenge to
the dismissal of his claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act by not addressing that claim in his brief, see United States ex rel. Totten v.
Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Consequently, he cannot show
that he was entitled to the requested injunctive relief.
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 23-5011                                                September Term, 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

                                                         FOR THE COURT:
                                                         Mark J. Langer, Clerk

                                                 BY:     /s/
                                                         Michael C. McGrail
                                                         Deputy Clerk

                                          Page 2