Court Opinion

ID: 9392847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-08 15:00:41.02552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:49.368366
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 22-5335                                                September Term, 2022
                                                                     1:22-cv-03302-UNA
                                                      Filed On: May 8, 2023
Raj K. Patel, The Excellent the Excellent,
from all capacities,

              Appellant

       v.

United States, et al.,

              Appellees

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

       BEFORE:       Childs and Pan, 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 amended 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 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 November 28,
2022 and December 19, 2022 orders be affirmed. The district court correctly concluded
that appellant lacked standing because he did not allege that he has suffered an injury
in fact. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (In order to satisfy the
“irreducible constitutional minimum of standing,” a plaintiff must have suffered an injury
that is concrete and particularized, and actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical.). At most, appellant’s complaints about current immigration policy amount
to a “generalized grievance,” which is insufficient to establish injury in fact. See Warth
v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975). For the same reason, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for post-judgment relief under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See, e.g., Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668 (D.C. Cir.
2004).
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 22-5335                                                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