U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 2023

Lena Lindberg v. Stone Park Entertainment

Lena Lindberg v. Stone Park Entertainment
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided September 5, 2023

Lena Lindberg v. Stone Park Entertainment

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 23-7058 September Term, 2023 1:23-cv-00929-UNA 1:23-cv-01186-UNA Filed On: September 5, 2023 Lena Marie Lindberg, Appellant v. Stone Park Entertainment, doing business as Score's Gentlemans Club, et al., Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: Henderson, Walker, and Garcia, 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, the motion for preliminary injunction; the motion to consolidate, to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, to appoint counsel, and to expedite; the motion for other relief; the motions to consolidate cases; the petition for writ of quo warranto and motion to intervene; and the petition for writ of error coram nobis, it is ORDERED that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis be dismissed as moot.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the remaining motions and the petitions 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, and appellant’s remaining requests for relief are without merit. It is FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s May 4, 2023 order be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with the pleading standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires “a short and plain statement of the claim United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 23-7058 September Term, 2023 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 669–71 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk

Page 2

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