Opinion
No. 09-5011.
Filed On: July 10, 2009.
BEFORE: Ginsburg, Tatel, and Brown, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion to appoint counsel; the motion for summary reversal and the opposition thereto; the motion for summary affirmance and the opposition thereto; the motion to strike the entry of appearance and the opposition thereto; and the motion to strike the motion for summary affirmance, it is
ORDERED that the motion to appoint 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 motions to strike be denied. It is appropriate for Mr. Roback to represent the unknown United States marshals. See 28 C.F.R. § 50.15. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted and the motion for summary reversal be denied. 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 determined that the unknown United States marshals, the only defendants named in appellant's amended complaint, are entitled to qualified immunity because no constitutional violation has been alleged. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001); see also Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S. Ct. 808, 821 (2009). Where an arresting officer has a reasonable, good faith belief that he is acting pursuant to a valid warrant, the arrest is not a false arrest and is not unconstitutional. See White v. Olig, 56 F.3d 817, 820 (7th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Hewlett, 395 F.3d 458, 462 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (concluding arrest was lawful when arresting officers reasonably believed that the warrant was valid). Having allegedly violated the laws of at least two sovereigns, appellant is "subject to prosecution by both, and he may not complain of or choose the manner or order in which each sovereign proceeds against him." Rawls v. United States, 166 F.2d 532, 534 (10th Cir. 1948); see also Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254, 260 (1922). The district court also properly determined that, due to the presence of the warrant, appellant also has not made out a constitutional claim of false imprisonment. See Voyticky v. Village of Timberlake, 412 F.3d 669, 677 (6th Cir. 2005); see also Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 142-44 (1979) (person arrested and detained pursuant to a facially valid warrant had no constitutional claim of false imprisonment). Nor has he made out a related conspiracy claim.
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.