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 district courts December 30, 2020 order dismissing appellants complaint without prejudice be affirmed. Apart from asserting that the well-established doctrines of judicial immunity, see, e.g., Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991), and prosecutorial immunity, see, e.g., Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976), are fundamentally unjust, appellant has raised no argument to challenge the district courts conclusion that the judges and prosecutors named as defendants in his complaint were entitled to immunity from his claims for damages. In addition, appellant has not addressed the district courts holding that venue is improper in the District of Columbia for appellants claims against the federal defendants pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, and for all claims against the Minnesota defendants. See United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (arguments not raised on appeal are forfeited).
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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