Court Opinion

ID: 9395527
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-18 14:01:39.85503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:09.311504
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                      ____________
No. 22-5248                                                 September Term, 2022
                                                                      1:22-cv-02203-UNA
                                                       Filed On: May 18, 2023
Joshua D. Franklin, also known as Josh,

              Appellant

       v.

United States of America, Inc., et al.,

              Appellees

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

       BEFORE:       Millett and Wilkins, 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, the motion to
appoint counsel and a private investigator, and the motion to exceed page limits, it is

       ORDERED that the motion to appoint counsel and a private investigator be
denied. In civil cases, litigants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they
have not demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. Additionally,
appellant has not shown he is entitled to appointment of a private investigator. It is

      FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to exceed page limits be dismissed as
moot. Appellant has submitted a brief that complies with the word limit. See Fed. R.
App. P. 32(a)(7), (f). It is

       FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s August 5, 2022
order be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s case as frivolous.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (“[A]
complaint . . . is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”).
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 22-5248                                                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        Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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/
                                                         Daniel J. Reidy
                                                         Deputy Clerk

                                          Page 2