Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Stephen Wesley Bailey v. Attorney General, Washington of the District of Columbia, 90-5132 (1990)

Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Number: 90-5132
Filed: Oct. 04, 1990
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 923 F.2d 200 287 U.S.App.D.C. 377 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant. Stephen Wesley BAILEY, Appellant, v. Attorney General, WASHINGTON of the District of Columbia. No. 90-5132. United States Court of Appeals, Dist
More

923 F.2d 200

287 U.S.App.D.C. 377

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.
Stephen Wesley BAILEY, Appellant,
v.
Attorney General, WASHINGTON of the District of Columbia.

No. 90-5132.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Oct. 4, 1990.

Before WALD, Chief Judge, and RUTH BADER GINSBURG and CLARENCE THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

1

Upon consideration of appellant's motion for appointment of counsel; appellant's motion for recusal; appellee's motion to summarily affirm and the response thereto; and appellant's motions to supplement the case with additional authority, it is

2

ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel be denied. Except in a criminal trial and on appeal therefrom, appointment of counsel is exceptional and is wholly unwarranted when appellant has not demonstrated any likelihood of success on the merits. See Poindexter v. FBI, 737 F.2d 1173, 1185 (D.C.Cir.1984); D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 30 (1987). It is

3

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for recusal be denied. It is

4

FURTHER ORDERED that the motions to supplement the case with additional authority be granted. It is

5

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted substantially for the reasons stated by the district court in its Memorandum Opinion filed September 29, 1989. 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).

6

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.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer