Steven Hewitt v. Antony Blinken
Steven Hewitt v. Antony Blinken
Opinion
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 19-5084 September Term, 2020 1:19-cv-00387-UNA Filed On: February 4, 2021 Steven A. Hewitt,
Appellant
v.
Antony Blinken Secretary, U.S. Department of State,
Appellee
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BEFORE: Pillard, Katsas, and Walker, Circuit Judges
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 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’s February 28, 2019 order dismissing appellant’s complaint be affirmed. The district court correctly concluded that the complaint, which sought to raise new arguments with respect to an earlier case involving appellant, was barred by res judicata. See Capitol Hill Group v. Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLC, 569 F.3d 485, 490 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Drake v. FAA, 291 F.3d 59, 66 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 19-5084 September Term, 2020
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
FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk
Page 2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished