Charles Eley, Appellant, v. District of Columbia, et al, 971 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1992)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 971 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1992) June 5, 1992

Before WALD, D.H. GINSBURG and SENTELLE, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.


Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance and the response thereto, and the motion for appointment of counsel, it is

ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel be denied. Appointment of counsel in a civil action is exceptional and wholly unwarranted when appellant has not demonstrated any likelihood of success on the merits. See D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 30 (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 February 28, 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 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.