Opinion
No. 08-5171.
Filed On: October 10, 2008.
BEFORE: Ginsburg, Tatel, and Griffith, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for appointment of counsel, 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, on the court's own motion, that the district court's order, filed April 29, 2008, be summarily affirmed. 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 dismissed the complaint because lower courts lack jurisdiction to review decisions of the United States Supreme Court or to compel Supreme Court clerks to take any action. See Marin v. Suter, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (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Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed.R.App.P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.