Skip to content

FOIA Activity: 15 New Procedural or Substantive Decisions

by FOIA Project Staff on September 15th, 2017

We have added 15 decisions of a procedural or substantive nature filed between September 3, 2017 and September 9, 2017. These are associated with 10 FOIA cases pending in federal district court. Note that because there can be delays between the date a decision is made and when it shows up on PACER, this listing includes only decisions that appeared on PACER during this period.

Click on the date to view the full text of the decision. Click on a case title below to view other details for that case, including links to the docket report and complaint.

  1. CAC 5:2017cv00185Oronde London v. City of Redlands
    • September 5, 2017: FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION issued by Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato. Re: Complaint – (Discovery), [1] , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case [43] (dts)
    • September 7, 2017: ORDER ACCEPTING FINAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge John F. Walter for Report and Recommendation (Final) 55. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered dismissing this action with prejudice and without leave to amend. (iva)
    • September 7, 2017: JUDGMENT by Judge John F. Walter, related to: ORDER ACCEPTING FINAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, [56] Pursuant to the Order Accepting Final Findings and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that this action is dismissed with prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (iva)
  2. DC 1:2012cv00893JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE et al
    • September 6, 2017: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 9/6/2017. (lcjdb3)
  3. DC 1:2014cv00192JACKSON v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al
    • September 8, 2017: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 9/8/17. (DMK)
  4. DC 1:2015cv01830MCFADDEN v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al
    • September 7, 2017: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the order granting McFadden leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. [5] , be VACATED and that his in forma pauperis status be REVOKED. It is further ORDERED that McFadden pay the balance of the filing fee on or before October 10, 2017, or the Court will dismiss his case without prejudice. This case is hereby STAYED until October 10, 2017. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 9/7/2017. (lcrdm1, )
  5. DC 1:2016cv01616KING & SPALDING, LLP v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES et al
    • September 6, 2017: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying without prejudice [20] Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and [21] Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. See the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order for further details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 09/06/2017. (lcapm2)
  6. DC 1:2016cv01670BURKE v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
    • September 8, 2017: MEMORANDUM OPINION on Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. [13] ), Plaintiff's motion for in camera review (Dkt. [22] ), and Defendant's motion for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's motion for in camera review (Dkt. [24] ). See document for details. A separate order (Dkt. [26] ) will issue. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 9/8/2017. (lcrdm1, )
  7. NCE 5:2016cv00070Hinson-Gribble v. United States Office of Personnel Management, et al
    • September 8, 2017: ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re [52] Memorandum and Recommendations. The court ADOPTS the M&R in full. The court DISMISSES plaintiffs FISMA and 40 U.S.C. § 11331 claims. The court also DISMISSES plaintiffs Pr ivacy Act claims against the individual defendants, the2 Specifically, as set forth in the M&R, the Privacy Act does not provide a vehicle for plaintiffs to challenge substantive decisions made by an agency. See e.g., Melvin v. U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs, 70 F. Supp. 3d 350, 357 (D.D.C. Sept., 30, 2014). Accordingly, to the extent plaintiff asserts claims under the Privacy Act to obtain relief from substantive decisions made with respect to various benefits she argues are due to her, such cla ims are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Installation Command, the DFAS, and the agency defendants, to the extent such claims against the agency defendants seek to challenge substantive decisions made by those agencies. The court ALLOWS plaintiffs remaining Privacy Act claims against defendants OPM, the Outreach Center, the DMDC, the APO, and the ID Card Facility to proceed. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 9/7/2017. (Collins, S.)
  8. NM 2:2016cv00506Beagles v. Watkins et al
    • September 6, 2017: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales granting, in part, [4] Defendants Joel Saavedra and the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division's Motion to Dismiss. (tah)
    • September 6, 2017: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales granting [18] New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions' Motion for Summary Judgment. (tah)
    • September 6, 2017: ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL by District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales. See [24] Memorandum Opinion and Order. (tah)
    • September 6, 2017: SUMMARY JUDGMENT by District Judge Kenneth J. Gonzales In favor of Defendant New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions. (tah)
  9. PAW 1:2016cv00233MCPHAIL v. HARDY, et al
    • September 7, 2017: MEMORANDUM ORDER that Defendants may not use a Glomar response to Plaintiff's request for "all electronic surveillance, wiretaps and audio files from [co-defendant] John J. Gilmartin." Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter on 9/7/2017. (dm)
  10. WAW 2:2017cv00822Singh v. Federal Aviation Administration
    • September 6, 2017: ORDER denying plaintiff's [15] Motion to forego summary judgment signed by Judge Richard A Jones.(RS)

From → FOIA, PACER

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Note: XHTML is allowed. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS