Narrative Opinion Summary
The appeal was reviewed based on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the parties' briefs. The motion for appointment of counsel was denied, as appellants generally do not have the right to counsel unless they demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits, with exceptions for defendants in criminal cases. The district court's order from February 24, 2009, was affirmed. The appellant failed to show that not being notified of the February 2008 hearing led to the revocation of his probation or his subsequent incarceration. In a Bivens action, a plaintiff must allege and prove that a constitutional violation caused the claimed harm. This decision will not be published according to D.C. Circuit Rule 36. The Clerk is instructed to delay the issuance of the mandate for seven days after any timely petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc are resolved.
Legal Issues Addressed
Issuance of the Mandate in Appellate Proceduresubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court instructed the Clerk to delay the mandate's issuance to allow time for resolving any petitions for rehearing.
Reasoning: The Clerk is instructed to delay the issuance of the mandate for seven days after any timely petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc are resolved.
Notification of Hearings and Due Processsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant claimed a due process violation due to lack of notification of a hearing leading to revocation of probation, but failed to show causation.
Reasoning: The appellant failed to show that not being notified of the February 2008 hearing led to the revocation of his probation or his subsequent incarceration.
Publication of Judicial Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision in this appeal will not be published according to the specific rules of the D.C. Circuit.
Reasoning: This decision will not be published according to D.C. Circuit Rule 36.
Requirements for a Bivens Actionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: In this case, the appellant did not successfully allege or prove a constitutional violation that caused the claimed harm, essential for a Bivens action.
Reasoning: In a Bivens action, a plaintiff must allege and prove that a constitutional violation caused the claimed harm.
Right to Counsel in Civil Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the appellant was not entitled to appointed counsel in a civil matter as he did not demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits.
Reasoning: The motion for appointment of counsel was denied, as appellants generally do not have the right to counsel unless they demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits, with exceptions for defendants in criminal cases.