Summary
discussing Supreme Court rule that petitions for writs of certiorari and mandamus are "not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion"
Summary of this case from Gillenwater v. HarrisOpinion
No. 08-5065.
Filed On: July 11, 2008.
BEFORE: Sentelle, Chief Judge, and Ginsburg and Randolph, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for summary reversal, the opposition thereto and motion for summary affirmance, the reply to the opposition to the motion for summary reversal and opposition to the motion for summary affirmance, the reply to the opposition to the motion for summary affirmance, the motion for leave to file a surreply, and the lodged surreply, it is
ORDERED that the motion for leave to file a surreply be denied. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary reversal be denied and that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying on futility grounds appellant's motion to vacate and for leave to file an amended complaint, as appellant's amended complaint challenging Supreme Court Rules 10 and 20.1 could not have survived a motion to dismiss. See generally James Madison Ltd. v. Ludwig, 82 F.3d 1085, 1099 (D.C. Cir. 1996). 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).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 rehearing en banc. See Fed.R.App.P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.