Jack Jordan v. Department of Justice

Whether a U.S. Court of Appeals may preclude appellant’s filing of any brief and presentation of any oral argument by merely asserting the vague conclusory contention that “[t]he merits of the parties’ positions [ ] warrant summary action” and “[t]he district court” judge “did not abuse” his “discretion in denying appellant’s motion” when the appeal is of denial of a motion under Rule 60(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requesting relief from judgment for “fraud,” “misrepresentation” and criminal “misconduct by” federal agency employees and when the appellant’s position is that such employees conspired with the district court judge to lie and deceive about and conceal evidence of material facts and commit wire fraud.

Whether, in an appeal governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551-559, 701-706, a U.S. Court of Appeals has the power to summarily affirm judgment for the government based on a mere vague allusion to the “merits of the parties’ positions.”

Whether a U.S. Court of Appeals three-judge panel may preclude appellant’s filing of any brief and presentation of any oral argument by merely asserting per curiam the wholly-unsubstantiated conclusory contention that “[t]he merits of the parties’ positions [ ] warrant summary action.”