Court Opinion

ID: 9960510
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 15:01:24.82753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:35.969590
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                      ____________
No. 23-5287                                                September Term, 2023
                                                                      1:23-cv-01459-UNA
                                                      Filed On: April 16, 2024
May Chen,

              Appellant

       v.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
et al.,

              Appellees

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

       BEFORE:       Henderson, Millett, 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 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
waive fees, which the court construes as a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, it is

      ORDERED that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis be dismissed as moot
because appellant’s IFP status in the district court carries over to this appeal. See Fed.
R. App. P. 24(a)(3). It is

       FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed
October 3, 2023 be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing
the complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with the pleading standards of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Ciralsky v.
CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 669-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Additionally, the district court correctly
concluded that it lacks authority to compel prosecution of a criminal case. See United
States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693-94 (1974); Powell v. Katzenbach, 359 F.2d 234,
234-35 (D.C. Cir. 1965).
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 23-5287                                                September Term, 2023

        Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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