Fernando Fontanez v. FBI ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                 United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
    ____________
    No. 21-5077                                                September Term, 2020
    1:21-cv-00203-UNA
    Filed On: July 7, 2021
    Fernando Fontanez,
    Appellant
    v.
    Federal Bureau of Investigation,
    Appellee
    ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    BEFORE:       Wilkins and Rao, 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 filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.
    34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, the motion to
    appoint counsel, and the motion to expedite ruling on the motion to appoint counsel, it
    is
    ORDERED that the motion to appoint counsel be denied and the motion to
    expedite be dismissed as moot. 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
    February 12, 2021, and March 4, 2021 be affirmed. The district court properly
    dismissed the complaint as frivolous. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B); Neitzke v.
    Williams, 
    490 U.S. 319
    , 325 (1989) (explaining that a complaint is frivolous “where it
    lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact”). Appellant has not shown any abuse of
    discretion in the district court’s denial of reconsideration. See Firestone v. Firestone,
    
    76 F.3d 1205
    , 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Additionally, appellant has not
    shown that the district court erred in denying him leave to file an amended complaint.
    See United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 
    380 F.3d 488
    , 497 (D.C. Cir.
    2004) (arguments not raised on appeal are forfeited); Hettinga v. United States,
    
    677 F.3d 471
    , 480 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (“A district court may deny a motion to
    United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
    ____________
    No. 21-5077                                                September Term, 2020
    amend a complaint as futile if the proposed claim would not survive a motion to
    dismiss.”). Because appellant has shown no basis for the requested relief, his request
    for an injunction and compensation under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 
    28 U.S.C. § 2679
    , is denied.
    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