Court Opinion

ID: 9377590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-08 15:00:26.690227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:15.148007
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                                  FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                           ____________
No. 21-5248                                                      September Term, 2022
                                                                           1:21-cv-02062-UNA
                                                                          1:21-mc-00094-UNA
                                                            Filed On: March 8, 2023
Shushean Wong and David Lee Koplow,

                  Appellants

         v.

Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General,

                  Appellee

------------------------------

Consolidated with 21-5262

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

         BEFORE:           Wilkins, Rao, and Walker, Circuit Judges

                                          JUDGMENT

        This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia and on the brief and supplements filed by appellants. See
Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, and
the motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the motion styled as a habeas
application, and the petition for writ of mandamus, it is

      ORDERED that the motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be dismissed
as moot. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3) (“A party who was permitted to proceed in forma
pauperis in the district-court action . . . may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis
without further authorization . . . .”). It is

         FURTHER ORDERED that the motion styled as a habeas application, which the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 21-5248                                                September Term, 2022

court construes as a motion for injunctive relief, be denied. This court lacks jurisdiction
over original habeas corpus petitions. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(a); Felker v. Turpin, 518
U.S. 651, 660-61 (1996). Construed as a motion for injunctive relief, appellants’ motion
does not demonstrate that they are entitled to the relief requested. It is

        FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus be denied.
Appellants seek an order directing the district court to docket particular submissions,
but all of those submissions appear on the district court dockets for these consolidated
cases. It is

       FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s August 23, 2021
order denying appellants’ motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissing appellants’
complaint, and the district court’s September 21, 2021 order denying appellants’
motions for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 59(e), be affirmed. Appellants
have raised no arguments challenging the merits of the district court’s decisions, and
they have therefore forfeited any such argument. See United States ex rel. Totten v.
Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Insofar as appellants allege that
the district court’s handling of this case was marred by procedural irregularities or
fraudulent activity, those allegations are without merit.

        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

                                          Page 2