WATFORD v. FOSSUM (2018)

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 for appointment of 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 May 12, 2017 order be affirmed. The district court correctly held that appellant’s damages claims against the Clerk of the Supreme Court and one of his employees are barred by judicial immunity. See Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460-61 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (per curiam). With respect to appellant’s claim for injunctive relief against the Clerk, his staff, or alternatively the Justices, the district court also properly concluded that it lacked authority to compel them to accept appellant’s submissions or to take any other action. See In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (per curiam).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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