Samar Chatterjee v. Yvonne Williams

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-7122 September Term, 2025 1:25-cv-02233-UNA Filed On: February 4, 2026 Samar Chatterjee, Appellant v. Yvonne Williams, Judge and District of Columbia Superior Court, Appellees ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: Rao, Walker, and Childs, 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 July 31, 2025 order be affirmed. Appellant has forfeited any challenge to the district court’s conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to review a decision of the D.C. Superior Court by failing to address that point on appeal. See U.S. ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Furthermore, the district court correctly ruled that the appellee judge had absolute judicial immunity from appellant’s claims. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9–13 (1991) (per curiam).

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-7122 September Term, 2025 Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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: Clifton B. Cislak, Clerk BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk

Page 2