Sylvester Jones, Appellant, v. William K. Suter, Clerk, United States Supreme Court, et al, 988 F.2d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 1993)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 988 F.2d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 1993) March 2, 1993. Rehearing and Rehearing En BancDenied April 9, 1993

Appeal From The United States District Court For The District of Columbia.

DDC

AFFIRMED.

Before MIKVA, Chief Judge, and STEPHEN F. WILLIAMS and SENTELLE, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.


This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by the appellant. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See D.C. Cir. Rule 14(c). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court's order filed September 27, 1991 be affirmed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Jones' complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1988). See Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 1734 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Similarly, where it is "patently obvious" that plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts alleged in the complaint, see Baker v. Director, United States Parole Comm'n, 916 F.2d 725, 726-27 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (per curiam), dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6) is appropriate as well. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that appellant's motion for summary judgment by default be dismissed as moot.

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.