Court Opinion

ID: 9375964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-01 16:00:38.134217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:03.259546
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 22-5299                                                September Term, 2022
                                                                      1:22-cv-03110-UNA
                                                       Filed On: March 1, 2023
Surf Moore,

               Appellant

       v.

National Security Agency,

               Appellee

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

       BEFORE:       Henderson and Katsas, 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). It is

        ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s October 21, 2022 order
dismissing appellant’s complaint and civil action be affirmed. The district court correctly
concluded that dismissal was warranted for substantially the same reasons as in Moore
v. NSA, No. 19-cv-3170 (D.D.C. Oct. 31, 2019), aff’d, No. 19-5324 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 5,
2020). Namely, that appellant’s allegations are baseless and wholly incredible. See,
e.g., Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (district court may dismiss as
frivolous a complaint whose factual allegations “rise to the level of the irrational or the
wholly incredible”).

        Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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