Alan Headman v. Clayton Higgins, Jr. ( 2023 )

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 22-5132 September Term, 2022
1:22-cv-00952-TJK
Filed On: July 19, 2023
Alan Headman,
Appellant
v.
Clayton R. Higgins, Jr.,
Appellee
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BEFORE: Millett and Pillard, 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 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 for other
relief styled as a motion to affirm service and evidence of payment of appeal fee, and
the motion for other relief styled as a motion to affirm service, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s April 26, 2022, order
dismissing appellant’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction be affirmed. The
district court correctly concluded that it lacked the authority to compel the Clerk of the
Supreme Court to take any particular action. See In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C.
Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (“We are aware of no authority for the proposition that a lower
court may compel the Clerk of the Supreme Court to take any action.”). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motions for other relief be dismissed as moot.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 22-5132 September Term, 2022
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