No. 08-5509.United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Filed On: July 8, 2009.
BEFORE: Ginsburg, Tatel, and Brown, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion to appoint counsel, and the supplement thereto; the motion for summary affirmance; appellants brief, and the response thereto; the Rule 28(j) letter, filed June 19, 2009; and the notice, filed June 22, 2009, 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). Assuming appellant was required to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e(a) and he has done so, the district court properly determined that presentence reports and Bureau of Prisons inmate records systems are exempt from the Privacy Act’s amendment and accuracy requirements. See Martinez v. BOP, 444 F.3d 620, 624 (D.C. Cir. 2006); White v. U.S. Probation Office, 148 F.3d 1124, 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1998). Nor has appellant identified any inaccurate records maintained by other agencies in violation of the Privacy Act. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(e), (d).
Appellant’s claims for damages also fail because he did not satisfy any of the required elements for such a claim. See Toolasprashad v. Bureau ofPrisons, 286 F.3d 576, 583 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Finally, to the extent appellant attempts to state a Bivens claim, see Bivens v. Six UnknownNamed Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403
Page 2
U.S. 388 (1971), the comprehensive remedial scheme of the Privacy Act precludes creation of a Bivens remedy for any of his constitutional claims. See Wilson v. Libby, 535 F.3d 697, 704-11 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.
Page 1