Opinion
No. 08-7018.
Filed On: May 16, 2008.
BEFORE: Garland, Brown, and Griffith, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for appointment of counsel, and the motion for summary affirmance and the response thereto, it is
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 did not abuse its discretion either in ordering appellants to file a more definite statement specifying dates for the events alleged in their 172-page complaint or in dismissing appellants' suit after they failed to comply with the order for a more definite statement. See Karim-Panahi v. United States Congress, 2004 WL 1588167, at *3 (D.C. Cir. July 14, 2004) (unpublished per curiam judgment); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-69 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.