GUILLORY v. BUSH, 07-5326 (D.C. Cir. 5-19-2008)
Telly Guillory, Appellant v. George W. Bush, et al., Appellees.
No. 07-5326.United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Filed On: May 19, 2008.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] BEFORE: Sentelle, Chief Judge, and Garland and Brown, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the Clerk's order, filed March 5, 2008, why the motion for summary affirmance should not be considered and decided without a response, and the response thereto; and the motion for appointment of counsel, it is
ORDERED that the order to show cause be discharged. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel be denied. With the exception of defendants appealing or defending in criminal cases, appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The district court properly dismissed the President and judges because they are absolutely immune from liability for damages for actions taken in the course of their official capacities. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) (absolute immunity for the President of the United States within the scope of any action taken in an official capacity); Mirales v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (absolute immunity for judges from damages for acts committed in their judicial capacities). The district court also properly dismissed appellant's claim inasmuch as a state prisoner's claims for money damagesPage 2
arising out of his conviction or confinement must be preceded by a successful habeas action. See Anyanwutaku v. Moore, 151 F.3d 1053, 1056
(D.C. Cir. 1998) (citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994)); seealso Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005). It is
FURTHER ORDERED, on the court's own motion, that with respect to the district court's dismissal of appellant's claims against the remaining non-federal appellees, the order filed September 4, 2007, be summarily affirmed for the reasons stated above and because the district court lacks jurisdiction to review directly the actions of state courts. SeeDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476
(1983).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed.R.App.P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.Page 3
Upon consideration of the trust account report and the consent to collection of fees, it is
ORDERED that because appellant has insufficient funds in his trust account, appellant will not be assessed an initial filing fee. See28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
Pursuant to appellant's consent to collection of fees, appellant's custodian is directed to collect from appellant's trust account monthly installments of 20 per cent of the previous month's income credited to appellant's account, and remit these payments until the full $455 docketing and filing fees have been paid. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). Such payments must be made each month the amount in appellant's account exceeds $10. The payment must be by check or money order made payable to Clerk, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and must be designated as made in payment of the filing fee for Case No. 07-5326, an appeal from Civil Action No. 07cv00780. A copy of this order must accompany each remittance. In the event appellant is transferred to another institution, the balance due must be collected and paid in installments to the Clerk by the custodian at appellant's next institution. Appellant's custodian must notify the Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Clerk, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in the event appellant is released from custody.Page 4
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to appellant by whatever means necessary to ensure receipt, and to the Clerk, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Clerk is further directed to send to appellant's custodian a copy of this order and appellant's consent to collection of fees.Page 5
Warden (Angola) Louisiana State Penitentiary LA State Prison General Delivery Angola, LA 70712-0000.
Re: 07-5326 Guillory, Telly v. Bush, George, et al.
Dear Warden:
Enclosed is an order from the court filed in a case pending before this court, addressed to Telly Guillory, #320441, a resident of your facility. Your cooperation in delivering the document and obtaining an acknowledgment of receipt would be greatly appreciated.
If the addressee is no longer at your facility or has refused to acknowledge receipt, or if your facility's rules do not permit you to assist the court in obtaining an acknowledgment, please follow the instructions on the attached sheet entitled "Instructions to the Warden." Whether or not you are able to assist the court in obtaining an acknowledgment, please treat the enclosed as special legal mail pursuant to 28 C.F.R §§ 540.2(c), 540.18 and 540.19, or applicable state regulations.
The enclosed extra copy of this letter should be used for the addressee's acknowledgment. A return envelope is also included. Thank you very much for your assistance.
Page 1