Unpublished Dispositionchester M. Weekly, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Robert L. Dinerstein, Nancy L. Cook, Keith W. Watters, Andtheresa M. Ostayesh, Defendants-appellees, 831 F.2d 298 (6th Cir. 1987)

The plaintiff moves for counsel on appeal from the district court's judgment dismissing this federal prisoner's civil rights case. This appeal has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. After an examination of the record and the briefs, this panel agrees unanimously that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).

The plaintiff's complaint alleges that three District of Columbia attorneys rendered him ineffective assistance of counsel in his criminal case in the District. It also alleges that a District police officer improperly processed him under an assumed name. The district court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over these defendants whose allegedly improper actions had all taken place in the District of Columbia. See International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). We agree with the conclusion of the district court.

The motion for counsel is denied. The judgment of the district court is affirmed under Rule 9(b) (5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit, because the issues are not substantial and do not require oral argument.