Ben Klassen, et al., Rudolph Stanko, Appellant, v. Michael Quinlan, Individually and in His Capacity Asdirector of the Bureau of Prisons, et al, 966 F.2d 702 (D.C. Cir. 1992)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 966 F.2d 702 (D.C. Cir. 1992) May 21, 1992

Before WALD, STEPHEN F. WILLIAMS and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges.



Upon consideration of appellees' motion for summary affirmance and the response thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion be granted substantially for the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum opinion filed April 30, 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) (per curiam); Walker v. Washington, 627 F.2d 541, 545 (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 994 (1980). The court correctly ruled that venue is lacking. See 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) (1991).

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.