Darren R. Vasaturo, Appellant v. Sasha Peterka, also known as Mira Peterka, et al., Appellees

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Darren R. Vasaturo, Appellant v. Sasha Peterka, also known as Mira Peterka, et al., Appellees

No. 16-5271

Decided: February 06, 2017

BEFORE: Henderson and Brown, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the response and supplement thereto, and the corrected reply; the motion for summary reversal and supplements, the corrected response thereto, and the reply and supplements; the motions to disqualify the district judge and supplements, the response thereto, and the reply; the motion for judicial notice; the motion to proceed on the original record in lieu of an appendix; the motions to supplement and amend the motions; and the motion for appointment of counsel, 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 any likelihood of success on the merits. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to proceed on the original record in lieu of an appendix be granted. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motions to disqualify the district judge be denied. Appellant has not alleged any credible basis for finding that the district judge has any personal bias against him or that the judge's impartiality reasonably could be questioned. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455; Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for judicial notice be denied. Appellant has not shown that the materials of which judicial notice is sought are necessary to the disposition of this appeal. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted and the motion for summary reversal denied. 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). After permitting appellant the opportunity to amend his complaint, the district court properly dismissed the second amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it is “'patently insubstantial,' presenting no federal question suitable for decision.” Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994)). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motions to supplement and amend the motions be denied as unnecessary.

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.

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY:

Robert J. Cavello Deputy Clerk

Per Curiam

Copied to clipboard