Full Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 26-5277 September Term, 2026 1:26-cv-01975-UNA Filed On: November 12, 2026 Darrell J. Harper, Appellant v. United States of America and Donald J. Trump, Appellees ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: Pillard, Wilkins, and Garcia, Circuit Judges JUDGMENT This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, and the motion to appoint counsel, it is ORDERED that the motion to appoint counsel be denied. In civil 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 AND ADJUDGED that the order of the district court dismissing appellant’s complaint be affirmed. Insofar as appellant sought damages based on his allegations of constitutional and statutory violations, the district court correctly concluded that appellant’s claims against the United States were barred by sovereign immunity. See United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983); Mason v. Judges of U.S. Court of Appeals, 952 F.2d 423, 425 (D.C. Cir. 1991). The court also correctly concluded that the Trump administration was not a proper defendant for claims based entirely on the alleged actions of judicial officers not subject to the United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 26-5277 September Term, 2026 administration’s authority. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (plaintiff’s asserted injury must be “fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant”); Common Cause v. Biden, 748 F.3d 1280, 1284 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (standing “requires that a proper defendant be sued”). Insofar as appellant sought any other form of relief, this court affirms the dismissal of the complaint on the alternative ground that appellant essentially sought to have the district court review orders issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which the district court lacked jurisdiction to do. See 28 U.S.C. § 1294(1). Finally, insofar as appellant asserts that the district court erred in not granting him an opportunity to amend his complaint prior to dismissing it, the district court’s sua sponte dismissal was without prejudice to the filing of a new complaint that corrected the defects of his complaint in this case. See Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 671 (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. Per Curiam FOR THE COURT: Clifton B. Cislak, Clerk BY: /s/ Michael C. McGrail Deputy Clerk Page 2