SHIPMAN v. CLERK OFFICE OF SUPREME COURT (2019)

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

D'Rayfield Kary-Khame SHIPMAN, Appellant v. CLERK'S OFFICE OF the U.S. SUPREME COURT, Appellee

No. 18-5301

Decided: February 26, 2019

BEFORE: Henderson and Wilkins, Circuit Judges; Sentelle, Senior Circuit Judge D'Rayfield Kary-Khame Shipman, Pro Se R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney's Office, (USA) Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee

JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief and appendix filed by the 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 order filed September 13, 2018 be affirmed. The district court correctly held that it has no authority to order the Clerk of the Supreme Court to take any action. See In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Appellant’s damages claim against the Clerk of the Supreme Court is barred by judicial immunity. See Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460-61 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (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Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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