David McConnell v. Michael Carvajal ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
    ____________
    No. 21-5066                                                September Term, 2020
    1:20-cv-02204-UNA
    Filed On: July 14, 2021
    David McConnell,
    Appellant
    v.
    Michael Carvajal, Director, Bureau of Prisons,
    Appellee
    ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    BEFORE:       Pillard, Wilkins, and Rao, 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). It is
    ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed October 26,
    2020, and December 22, 2020, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed
    appellant’s petition for writ of mandamus for failure to state a claim on which relief may
    be granted. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B)(ii); Walpin v. Corp. for Nat’l & Cmty. Servs.,
    
    630 F.3d 184
    , 186-88 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its
    discretion in denying reconsideration. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Firestone v. Firestone,
    
    76 F.3d 1205
    , 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Specifically, appellant has not
    demonstrated that the district court erred in concluding that the Freedom of Information
    Act (“FOIA”) provides him with an alternative avenue to obtain the information he seeks.
    Accordingly, appellant has not satisfied his burden to demonstrate that “there is no
    other adequate remedy available to [him].” Power v. Barnhart, 
    292 F.3d 781
    , 784 (D.C.
    Cir. 2002) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Finally, appellant has not
    shown that the district court improperly dismissed the case sua sponte without providing
    leave to amend. See Rollins v. Wackenhut Servs., Inc., 
    703 F.3d 122
    , 127 (D.C. Cir.
    2012) (district court may dismiss a claim without notice “where it is patently obvious that
    the plaintiff cannot possibly prevail based on the facts alleged in the complaint.”)
    (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
    United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
    ____________
    No. 21-5066                                                September Term, 2020
    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