John Wilson, Jr. v. Daniel Alfonso ( 2021 )

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 20-7046 September Term, 2020
1:20-cv-00387-UNA
Filed On: August 23, 2021
John J. Wilson, Jr.,
Appellant
v.
Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager, et al.,
Appellees
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BEFORE: Millett and Wilkins, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit
Judge
JUDGMENT
This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia and on the brief and appendix 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 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
sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. It is
FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders, filed
March 5, 2020 and April 30, 2020, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed
appellant’s case with prejudice on the ground that the complaint failed to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); Atherton v. D.C.
Office of the Mayor, 567 F.3d 672, 681-82 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“[E]ven a pro se
complainant must plead ‘factual matter’ that permits the court to infer ‘more than the
mere possibility of misconduct.’”) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79
(2009)); Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (“A
dismissal with prejudice is warranted . . . when a trial court determines that the
allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure
the deficiency.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for reconsideration, see Smalls v.
United States, 471 F.3d 186, 191 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (denial of Rule 60(b) motion reviewed
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 20-7046 September Term, 2020
for abuse of discretion); Firestone, 76 F.3d at 1208 (denial of Rule 59(e) motion
reviewed for abuse of discretion), or his motions for injunctive relief, see In re Navy
Chaplaincy, 697 F.3d 1171, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (reviewing for abuse of discretion
“district court’s ultimate decision to deny injunctive relief”).
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