# Thurman Brown v. United States Supreme Court

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 19, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9396119

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** May 19, 2023
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9396119

## Opinion text

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 22-5261 September Term, 2022
1:22-cv-02042-CKK
Filed On: May 19, 2023
Thurman Jerome Brown,

Appellant

v.

United States Supreme Court, et al.,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Millett and Wilkins, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit
Judge

JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.
34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing and the motion to
appoint counsel, it is

ORDERED that the motion to appoint counsel be denied. In civil cases, litigants
are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated sufficient
likelihood of success on the merits. It is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed on
August 5, 2022 and November 30, 2022 be affirmed. The district court properly
dismissed the complaint and case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).
Appellant’s complaint did not set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief,” which is required in order to “give the defendant fair
notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Jones v. Kirchner, 835
F.3d 74, 79 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007)). Additionally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion
for reconsideration. See Smalls v. United States, 471 F.3d 186, 191 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
The district court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review decisions of
the United States Supreme Court or to direct that Court to take any action. See In re
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 22-5261 September Term, 2022

Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Furthermore, appellant has not
shown that his conviction or sentence has been overturned, and thus he may not
recover damages arising from his conviction or imprisonment. See Heck v.Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); see also Chambers v. Burwell, 824 F.3d 141, 143 (D.C.
Cir. 2016) (this court “may affirm the district court on any ground supported by the
record”). Additionally, the district court correctly concluded that, to the extent appellant
seeks to challenge the criminal prosecutions of others, he lacks standing to do so. See
In re Kaminski, 960 F.2d 1062, 1064 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (private party lacks judicially
cognizable interest in prosecution of another person).

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.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/
Daniel J. Reidy
Deputy Clerk

Page 2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9396119. Public record. Not legal advice.