SNIPES v. CHUTKAN (2021)

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 reconsideration, it is

ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration be denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court's order filed June 16, 2020, be affirmed. The district court properly concluded that the complaint was frivolous, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989) (“[A] complaint ․ is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.”); Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1308 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“An in forma pauperis complaint is properly dismissed as frivolous ․ if it is clear from the face of the pleading that the named defendant is absolutely immune from suit on the claims asserted.”), and that the court lacked authority to review decisions of other federal courts, see 28 U.S.C. § 1294(1). Furthermore, appellant has not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motions for appointment of counsel and for a preliminary injunction. See In re Navy Chaplaincy, 697 F.3d 1171, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (district court's ultimate decision to deny preliminary injunctive relief is reviewed for abuse of discretion); Gaviria v. Reynolds, 476 F.3d 940, 943 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (district court's decision denying appointment of counsel is reviewed for abuse of discretion).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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