Prince Jones v. Todd Perkins ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
    ____________
    No. 21-7137                                                September Term, 2021
    1:19-cv-03168-APM
    Filed On: July 14, 2022
    Prince Jones,
    Appellant
    v.
    Todd Perkins, D.C. Metropolitan Police
    Department, et al.,
    Appellees
    ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    BEFORE:       Henderson, Wilkins, and Katsas, Circuit Judges
    JUDGMENT
    This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court
    for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. 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 and the supplement thereto, 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 order entered
    on November 8, 2021, denying appellant’s motion for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of
    Civil Procedure 60(b), be affirmed. The notice of appeal is timely only as to that order,
    as appellant’s Rule 60(b) motion was not filed within 28 days of the judgment and thus
    did not extend the time for appealing the judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv).
    Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s Rule
    60(b) motion, which merely repeated his prior allegations and arguments. See Smalls
    v. United States, 
    471 F.3d 186
    , 191 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (district court’s denial of relief
    United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
    ____________
    No. 21-7137                                                September Term, 2021
    under Rule 60(b) reviewed for abuse of discretion); Kramer v. Gates, 
    481 F.3d 788
    ,
    791-92 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is reserved for “extraordinary
    circumstances”).
    Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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
    Page 2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-7137

Filed Date: 7/14/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/14/2022