Richardson v. Dist. of Col.

Full title: T. Carlton Richardson, Appellant v. District of Columbia, et al., Appellees

Court: United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: Feb 13, 2008

No. 07-7138 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 13, 2008)

Opinion

No. 07-7138.

Filed On: February 13, 2008.

BEFORE: Randolph, Tatel, and Griffith, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motions for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto, and the reply; and the motion for sanctions, the opposition thereto, and the reply, it is

ORDERED that the motions for summary affirmance be granted in part and denied in part. 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's orders entered July 11, 2007 and August 24, 2007 are affirmed. Appellant has not demonstrated "extraordinary circumstances" justifying the reinstatement, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6), of his previously dismissed habeas petition. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 538 (2005). Additionally, appellant's civil rights claims (appearing in count two of his complaint) are barred by the collateral estoppel doctrine.See Martin v. Dep't of Justice, 488 F.3d 446, 454 (D.C. Cir. 2007); GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901, 912 (D.C. Cir. 1987). Moreover, the district court's order entered September 25, 2007 is summarily affirmed to the extent it requires appellant to pay $1,500 to the Clerk of the district court and the costs relating to appellee Donna DeSilva's district court sanctions motion. Those portions of the sanctions order do not constitute an abuse of discretion. See Cooter Gell v. Hartmax Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405 (1990). The portion of the court's order entered September 25, 2007 that imposes a filing injunction is vacated and the case remanded because the injunction is not supported by "substantive findings as to the frivolous or harassing nature of the litigant's actions." In re Powell, 851 F.2d 427, 431 (D.C. Cir. 1988).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.