Court Opinion

ID: 9400753
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-09 14:01:33.384474+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:47.956491
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                       ____________
No. 23-5056                                                  September Term, 2022
                                                                         1:23-cv-00492-UNA
                                                        Filed On: June 9, 2023

Nickholas Knight, Sr.,

              Appellant

       v.

Joe Biden Admin, et al.,

              Appellee

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

       BEFORE:        Millett and Pillard, 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 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, the motion to stay pending appeal and the supplement thereto, and the
motion for judgment, 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
any likelihood of success on the merits. It is

       FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for judgment be denied. It is

       FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s March 6, 2023,
order be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s case without
prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Appellant’s
complaint did not set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief,” which is required in order to “give the defendant fair notice of
what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Jones v. Kirchner, 835 F.3d 74,
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 23-5056                                                September Term, 2022

79 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). It
is

        FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to stay pending appeal be dismissed as
moot.

        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