John J. Zichko, Appellant, v. Department of Justice, et al, 959 F.2d 1102 (D.C. Cir. 1992)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 959 F.2d 1102 (D.C. Cir. 1992) March 15, 1992. Rehearing Denied May 28, 1992

Before WALD, SILBERMAN and KAREN LeCRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.


Upon consideration of appellees' motion for summary affirmance and appellant's motions for summary reversal and appointment of counsel, it is

ORDERED that appellant's motion for appointment of counsel be denied. Appointment of counsel in a civil action is exceptional and is unwarranted when appellant has not demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. See D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 29 (1987). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted substantially for the reasons stated by the district court in its order filed May 20, 1991. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to justify summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Walker v. Washington, 627 F.2d 541, 545 (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 994 (1980). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that appellant's motion for summary reversal be denied.

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C. Cir. Rule 15.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.