U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 2016

Shelden v. United States Department of Justice, Office of Counsel

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided October 19, 2016 · Brown, Ginsburg, Griffith

672 F. App'x 33

Counsel

Steve Shelden, Pro Se., R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney’s Office, (USA) Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Appellees United States Department of Justice, Office of Counsel, United States Department of Commerce, Office of Counsel, United States Department of Defense, Office of Counsel, Federal Bureau of Investigation, The National Institutes of Health, Judith W. Rogers, US Court of Appeals (District of Columbia), Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Cornelia T.L. Pillard.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Shelden v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2018)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

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). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s March 31, 2016 order be affirmed. Appellant’s complaint was properly dismissed because it was “patently insubstantial, presenting no federal question suitable for decision.” Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.