Ruben Santoyo v. Supreme Court of the United States

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-5012 September Term, 2025 1:24-cv-02061-UNA Filed On: October 20, 2025 Ruben Santoyo,

Appellant

v. Supreme Court of the United States,

Appellee

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Millett, Pillard, and Rao, 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). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed September 30, 2024 and December 5, 2024, be affirmed. The district court correctly concluded that it lacks authority to compel the Supreme Court or its Clerk’s Office to take any action. See In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (stating that the Supreme Court has “exclusive” supervisory responsibility over its Clerk, and “neither a district court nor a circuit court of appeals has jurisdiction to interfere with it by mandamus or otherwise”). Additionally, appellant has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for reconsideration. See Messina v. Krakower, 439 F.3d 755, 759 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (denials of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motions are reviewed for abuse of discretion).

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-5012 September Term, 2025

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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/ Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk

Page 2