Perkins v. Ashcroft

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided April 22, 2008

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2008-04-22

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently November 2017

5 district ·

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“to the extent appellant was attempting to sue the former Attorney General in his official capacity, the action is barred by sovereign immunity”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Boling v. U.S. Parole Comm'n

Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Clark v. Library of Congress

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2008-04-22

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

¶2This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. It is

¶3ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed November 8, 2007, be affirmed. Appellant has failed to state a claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and, to the extent appellant was attempting to sue the former Attorney General in his official capacity, the action is barred by sovereign immu*18nity, see Clark v. Library of Congress, 750 F.2d 89,102-04 (D.C.Cir.1984).

¶4Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.