Keith Oliver Stoddard, Appellant v. David Wynn, in his individual capacity and Jequan S. Jackson, in her individual capacity, Appellees

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Keith Oliver Stoddard, Appellant v. David Wynn, in his individual capacity and Jequan S. Jackson, in her individual capacity, Appellees

No. 16-5182

Decided: February 21, 2017

BEFORE: Rogers, Kavanaugh, and Millett, Circuit Judges

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion for appointment of counsel, the opposition thereto, and the reply; the motion for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto, and the reply, it is

ORDERED that the motion for appointment of 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 that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) regarding its December 16, 2015 order dismissing the claims against appellee David Wynn. See In re Sealed Case (Bowles), 624 F.3d 482, 489 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Lepkowski v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury, 804 F.2d 1310, 1314 (D.C. Cir. 1986). Although appellant argues that his court-appointed counsel was ineffective, counsel's deficient performance is not a ground for relief in a civil case brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See, e.g., Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8th Cir. 1988) (ineffectiveness of counsel not grounds for relief in inmate civil rights case); United States v. 7108 West Grand Ave., Chicago, Ill., 15 F.3d 632, 635 (7th Cir. 1994) (ineffectiveness not grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)); cf. Berry v. Coastal Int'l Sec., Inc., No. 16-7043, 2016 WL 4434664 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (ineffectiveness not grounds for relief in a civil employment discrimination case). Furthermore, appellant has forfeited any argument concerning the district court's denial of reconsideration regarding its March 10, 2016 order dismissing the claims against appellee Jequan S. Jackson on absolute immunity grounds. See U.S. ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“Ordinarily, arguments that parties do not make on appeal are deemed to have been waived.”).

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

Copied to clipboard