| Date Filed | Doc # | Docket Text |
|
| 2019-12-11 | 1 | COMPLAINT against EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA filed by EDWIN PAWLOSKI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet) (ztth) (Entered: 12/17/2019) |
| 2019-12-16 | | Filing fee received: $ 400.00, receipt number: 4616101818. (ztth) (Entered: 12/17/2019) |
| 2019-12-17 | | SUMMONS Not Issued as to EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (ztth) (Entered: 12/17/2019) |
| 2019-12-20 | | MINUTE ORDER: The Court notes that the docket in this case reflects that no summonses have been issued. Plaintiff is advised that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(b), it is his responsibility to present any required summonses to the Clerk of the Court for signature and seal. The plaintiff may obtain copies of the relevant summonses from the Court's website under the tab "pro se help." The summons for a FOIA case is available at https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/sites/dcd/files/Summons-FOIA_2013_FILL.pdf. Plaintiff is further advised that service of summonses and the complaint must be accomplished consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i), which applies to service on the "United States and its Agencies, Corporations, Officers, or Employees." Plaintiff is further advised that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), he must serve Defendants within 90 days of filing the complaint or show good cause for an extension. Failure to serve Defendants within 90 days--here, by March 10, 2020--or show good cause for an extension will result in a mandatory dismissal of this action. Finally, Plaintiff is advised that he must comply with the proof of service requirement of Federal Rule of Civil procedure 4( l )(1). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that, in order to avoid a mandatory dismissal of this action, by March 10, 2020, Plaintiff shall either (1) cause process to be served upon Defendants and file proof of service with the Court, or (2) file a motion to enlarge time to serve process and show good cause, if any, for failure to serve process in a timely fashion. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 12/20/2019. (lctjk1) (Entered: 12/20/2019) |
| 2020-03-17 | 2 | ORDER DISMISSING CASE. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 3/17/2020. (lctjk1) (Entered: 03/17/2020) |
| 2020-06-15 | 3 | MOTION for Reconsideration re 2 Order Dismissing Pro Se Case by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI (Attachment: # 1 Exhibit - Attachment) (ztth) (Entered: 06/16/2020) |
| 2020-06-18 | | MINUTE ORDER: On March 17, 2020, the Court dismissed this case for failure to effectuate service. ECF No. 2 . As noted in the Order, the Court had explicitly warned the Plaintiff, who is a prisoner proceeding pro se , that his failure to properly serve the Defendants (or to move for additional time to do so) by the requisite deadline would result in dismissal. See Minute Order of December 20, 2020. Because the Plaintiff failed to do either, the Court dismissed the case. ECF No. 2 . He has since written to the Court detailing several unsuccessful attempts to make service. See ECF No. 3 . For example, he says the Clerk's office repeatedly returned voided summonses and sent him an application to proceed in forma pauperis . Id. (Although he is imprisoned and proceeding pro se , the Plaintiff has not sought to proceed in forma pauperis .) He also explains that pandemic-related restrictions where he is imprisoned stymied additional efforts to effectuate service before the deadline. Id. He asks the Court to reconsider its order. Id. at 3. The Court construes the Plaintiff's letter as a Motion for Reconsideration under Rule 60(b). See Halvonik v. Doll , 263 F.R.D. 13, 15 (D.D.C. 2009). The Court must consider four factors when determining whether any neglect is excusable: "(1) the danger of prejudice to the party opposing the modification, (2) the length of delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith." In re Vitamins Antitrust Class Actions , 327 F.3d 1207, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 2003). These factors weigh in the Plaintiff's favor. First, it seems unlikely at this early stage that any prejudice or significant delay would result from allowing the Plaintiff more time to effectuate service. See Halvonik , 263 F.R.D. at 16. Additionally, a substantial portion of the circumstances that hindered the Plaintiff's efforts were well beyond his control. Finally, his repeated interactions with the Clerk's office strongly suggest that he acted in good faith. In light of this, and bearing in mind the Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court finds any neglect excusable. See Moore v. Agency for Int'l Dev. , 994 F.2d 874, 876 (D.C. Cir. 1993). This does not affect the Plaintiff's ongoing obligation to effectuate service. As already explained, "[s]ervice is more than a mere formality." ECF No. 2 at 2. Given the current circumstances, the Court will allow him 90 additional days--here, by September 15, 2020--to either effectuate service, seek for good cause additional time to do so, or request "that service be made by a United States marshal or deputy marshal," Fed R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). Failure to take one of these steps by September 16, 2020, will result in a mandatory dismissal of this action. The Court also reminds the Plaintiff that: (1) service of summonses and the complaint must be accomplished consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(i), which applies to service on the "United States and its Agencies, Corporations, Officers, or Employees;" and (2) he must comply with the proof of service requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4( l )(1). For these reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's 3 Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's 1 Complaint is REINSTATED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to reopen the case. Finally, it is further ORDERED that, to avoid a mandatory dismissal of this action, by September 16, 2020, the Plaintiff shall either: (1) cause process to be served upon Defendants and file proof of service with the Court, (2) file a motion to enlarge time to serve process, or (3) file a motion seeking that service be made by the United States Marshals Service. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 6/18/2020. (lctjk1) (Entered: 06/18/2020) |
| 2020-07-09 | | SUMMONS (3) Issued as to EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General. (ztth) (Entered: 07/09/2020) |
| 2020-08-26 | 4 | ANSWER to 1 Complaint by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.(Tilghman, Michael) (Entered: 08/26/2020) |
| 2020-08-31 | 5 | RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS served on 7/27/2020; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA served on 7/27/2020, RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 7/27/2020., RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 7/27/2020. ( Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 8/26/2020.) (zrdj) Modified on 9/1/2020 (zrdj). (Entered: 09/01/2020) |
| 2020-09-20 | 6 | LEAVE TO FILE DENIED- Letter submitted by Plaintiff. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Leave to file DENIED. The parties may not communicate with the court ex parte and via letter. Request for additional time or extension shall be made by motion only" Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 09/20/2020. (zjf) (Entered: 09/24/2020) |
| 2020-09-21 | | MINUTE ORDER: Before the Court in this FOIA case are a complaint and an answer. It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall meet, confer, and file a joint proposed schedule for briefing or disclosure by October 2, 2020. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 9/21/2020. (lctjk1) (Entered: 09/21/2020) |
| 2020-10-02 | 7 | Joint STATUS REPORT by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tilghman, Michael) (Entered: 10/02/2020) |
| 2020-10-02 | 8 | Supplemental STATUS REPORT by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Tilghman, Michael) (Entered: 10/02/2020) |
| 2020-10-05 | | MINUTE ORDER: In light of the parties' 7 Joint Status Report and 8 Supplemental Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file a further joint status report by November 2, 2020. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 10/5/2020. (lctjk1) (Entered: 10/05/2020) |
| 2020-10-05 | 9 | RESPONSE to Statement of Genuine Issues filed by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. (zrdj) (Entered: 10/06/2020) |
| 2020-10-13 | 10 | NOTICE by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Tilghman, Michael) (Entered: 10/13/2020) |
| 2020-11-02 | 11 | STATUS REPORT by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Tilghman, Michael) (Entered: 11/02/2020) |
| 2020-11-03 | | MINUTE ORDER: In light of Defendants' 11 Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file a further joint status report by December 2, 2020. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 11/3/2020. (lctjk1) Modified to identify entry as a Minute Order on 11/3/2020 (zkh). (Entered: 11/03/2020) |
| 2020-12-02 | 12 | STATUS REPORT by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Tilghman, Michael) (Entered: 12/02/2020) |
| 2020-12-03 | | MINUTE ORDER: In light of Defendants' 12 Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file a further joint status report by January 5, 2021, and every sixty days thereafter, until the Court orders otherwise. In the event Defendants are unable to file a joint report with Plaintiff despite good faith efforts to do so, the parties shall file separate reports. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 12/3/2020. (lctjk1) (Entered: 12/03/2020) |
| 2021-01-04 | 14 | LEAVE TO FILE DENIED - Letter from EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Leave to file DENIED. Letters are not an appropriate method of communicating with the Court." Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 1/4/2021. (ztth) (Entered: 01/26/2021) |
| 2021-01-05 | 13 | STATUS REPORT by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Tilghman, Michael) (Entered: 01/05/2021) |
| 2021-01-13 | | MINUTE ORDER: A joint status report--or separate reports if the parties were unable to confer--was due in this case by January 5, 2021. See Order of December 3, 2020. On January 5, Defendants filed their own status report in compliance with the Court's Order, stating they were unable to confirm Plaintiff's consent to the contents of their report. ECF No. 13 at 1 n.1. Plaintiff must also comply with the Court's Order and file his own separate status report but has not done so. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a status report by February 12, 2021. Plaintiff is instructed that he may not communicate ex parte with the Court via letter and must file a report on the docket. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 1/13/2021. (lctjk1) Modified to change deadline on 1/13/2021 (zkh). (Entered: 01/13/2021) |
| 2021-02-16 | 15 | STATUS REPORT by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. (ztth) (Entered: 02/17/2021) |
| 2021-02-18 | | VACATED PURSUANT TO ORDER FILED 8/12/2021..... MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the Government's 13 Status Report and Plaintiff's 15 Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file a further joint status report by March 15, 2021, and every sixty days thereafter, until the Court orders otherwise. In the event the Government is unable to file a joint report with Plaintiff despite good faith efforts to do so, the parties shall file separate reports. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 2/18/2021. (lctjk1) Modified to vacate on 8/16/2021 (zkh). (Entered: 02/18/2021) |
| 2021-03-15 | 16 | Joint STATUS REPORT by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Tilghman, Michael) (Entered: 03/15/2021) |
| 2021-04-21 | 17 | MOTION for Leave to File by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. (Attachment: # 1 Exhibit - Attachments) (ztth) (Entered: 04/23/2021) |
| 2021-05-14 | 18 | STATUS REPORT by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Tilghman, Michael) (Entered: 05/14/2021) |
| 2021-07-13 | 19 | Joint STATUS REPORT by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Tilghman, Michael) (Entered: 07/13/2021) |
| 2021-08-04 | 20 | MOTION for Summary Judgment by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. "Leave to file GRANTED" by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 8/4/2021. (ztth) (Entered: 08/05/2021) |
| 2021-08-11 | 21 | MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and to Dispense with Joint Status Report Requirement by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tilghman, Michael) (Entered: 08/11/2021) |
| 2021-08-12 | | MINUTE ORDER treating as opposed and granting Defendants' 21 Motion for Extension of Time. It is hereby ORDERED, for good cause shown, that Defendants' motion is GRANTED. Defendants shall file their response to Plaintiff's 20 Motion for Summary Judgment by October 29, 2021. It is further ORDERED that the Court's Order of February 18, 2021, requiring the parties to file status reports, is hereby VACATED. The parties need not file any further reports. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 8/12/2021. (lctjk1) (Entered: 08/12/2021) |
| 2021-08-18 | 22 | LEAVE TO FILE DENIED - Motion for Summary Judgment This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Leave to file denied; Document is a duplicate of previously filed motion." Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 8/18/2021. (Attachment: # 1 Exhibits) (ztth) Modified text on 8/20/2021 (ztth). (Entered: 08/20/2021) |
| 2021-08-25 | 23 | RESPONSE re 21 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and to Dispense with Joint Status Report Requirement filed by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. (ztth) (Entered: 08/26/2021) |
| 2021-10-21 | 24 | MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Tilghman, Michael) (Entered: 10/21/2021) |
| 2021-10-25 | | MINUTE ORDER treating as opposed and granting Defendants' 24 Motion for Extension of Time. It is hereby ORDERED, for good cause shown, that Defendants' motion is GRANTED. Defendants shall file their response to Plaintiff's 20 Motion for Summary Judgment by November 8, 2021. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 10/25/2021. (lctjk1) (Entered: 10/25/2021) |
| 2021-10-25 | | Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 11/8/2021. (zkh) (Entered: 10/25/2021) |
| 2021-10-25 | 25 | MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. (ztth) (Entered: 10/27/2021) |
| 2021-10-27 | | MINUTE ORDER granting Plaintiff's 25 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. Defendants' response is currently due by November 8, 2021. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file any reply to Defendants' response on or before December 8, 2021. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 10/27/2021. (lctjk1) (Entered: 10/27/2021) |
| 2021-11-08 | 26 | Memorandum in opposition to re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Statement of Undisputed Facts and Statement of Addtional Facts, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Text of Proposed Order)(Tilghman, Michael) (Entered: 11/08/2021) |
| 2021-11-16 | 27 | Mail Returned as Undeliverable: Copy of Minute Order dated 10/27/2021; Sent to EDWIN PAWLOWSKI; Resent at New Address: N/A. (zkh) (Entered: 11/17/2021) |
| 2021-12-06 | 28 | NOTICE by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Tilghman, Michael) (Entered: 12/06/2021) |
| 2022-01-21 | 29 | REPLY to opposition to motion re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. "Leave to file GRANTED" by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 1/21/2022. (ztth) (Entered: 01/21/2022) |
| 2022-02-18 | | MINUTE ORDER denying Plaintiff's 20 Motion for Summary Judgment. "Summary judgment is appropriately granted when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movants and drawing all reasonable inferences accordingly, no reasonable jury could reach a verdict in their favor." Lopez v. Council on Am.-Islamic Rels. Action Network, Inc. , 826 F.3d 492, 496 (D.C. Cir. 2016). "The evidence presented must show 'that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'" Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). Plaintiff's motion provides no basis for the Court to grant summary judgment in his favor. Regarding the records he requested from the FBI, the parties dispute whether Plaintiff narrowed his request. If he did not, the FBI's processing rate of 500 pages per month (which Plaintiff deems too slow) provides the Court no basis to grant him summary judgment, especially given that the D.C. Circuit has blessed it. Nat'l Sec. Counselors v. U.S. Dep't of Just. , 848 F.3d 467, 471-72 (D.C. Cir. 2017). And even if he did narrow his request, Plaintiff has not explained why the FBI's proffered justification for withholding the records under Exemption 7(A), which appears adequate on its face, is insufficient. And as the FBI explains, it need not produce a Vaughn index for withholdings under this exemption. See ECF No. 26 at 20-21; see also Bevis v. Dep't of State , 801 F.2d 1386, 1389 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (When invoking Exemption 7(A), "the FBI need not proceed on a document-by-document basis, detailing to the court the interference that would result from the disclosure of each of them."). The Court will take up whether the FBI has met its burden to withhold these documents upon the FBI's filing of a motion for summary judgment. As for the records he requested from EOUSA, for similar reasons, its processing rate provides no basis for the Court to grant Plaintiff summary judgment, nor does EOUSA need to justify its withholdings before completing its processing of responsive records. In sum, Plaintiff's apparent refusal to narrow this massive request does not entitle him to cut to the front of the line. EOUSA's policy, like the FBI's, "provides more pages to more requesters, avoiding situations in which a few, large queue requests monopolize finite processing resources." Nat'l Sec. Counselors , 848 F.3d at 47172 (cleaned up). Thus, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's 20 Motion is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that the parties shall submit a joint status report addressing how they wish to proceed by April 18, 2022. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 2/18/2022. (lctjk1) (Entered: 02/18/2022) |
| 2022-02-18 | | MINUTE ORDER denying as moot Plaintiff's 17 Motion for Leave to File. Plaintiff moved to submit to the record two letters that he received from the FBI. Because Plaintiff attached those same letters to his 20 Motion for Summary Judgment, the letters are already in the record. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's 17 motion is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 2/18/2022. (lctjk1) (Entered: 02/18/2022) |
| 2022-04-07 | 30 | NOTICE of Change of Address by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. "Leave to file GRANTED" by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 4/7/2022. (ztth) (Entered: 04/07/2022) |
| 2022-04-18 | 31 | NOTICE of Appearance by Stephen DeGenaro on behalf of EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(DeGenaro, Stephen) (Entered: 04/18/2022) |
| 2022-04-18 | 32 | Joint STATUS REPORT by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(DeGenaro, Stephen) (Entered: 04/18/2022) |
| 2022-04-18 | 33 | NOTICE regarding Service of Notice of Appearance and Joint Status Report by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA re 31 Notice of Appearance, 32 Status Report (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(DeGenaro, Stephen) (Entered: 04/18/2022) |
| 2022-04-19 | | MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the parties' 32 Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file a further joint status report by June 17, 2022, addressing how they wish to proceed in this case. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 4/19/2022. (lctjk1) (Entered: 04/19/2022) |
| 2022-05-11 | 34 | NOTICE OF APPEAL as to Order on Motion for Leave to File, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Set/Reset Deadlines, by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. Fee Status: No Fee. Parties have been notified. (ztth) (Entered: 05/13/2022) |
| 2022-05-11 | 35 | Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed (Memorandum Opinion), and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The fee remains to be paid and another notice will be transmitted when the fee has been paid in the District Court or motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis has been decided re 34 Notice of Appeal. (ztth) (Entered: 05/13/2022) |
| 2022-05-19 | | USCA Case Number 22-5130 for 34 Notice of Appeal filed by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. (ztth) (Entered: 05/20/2022) |
| 2022-06-17 | 36 | Joint STATUS REPORT by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(DeGenaro, Stephen) (Entered: 06/17/2022) |
| 2022-06-18 | | MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the parties' 36 Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file a further joint status report by August 16, 2022. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 6/18/2022. (lctjk1) (Entered: 06/18/2022) |
| 2022-07-08 | 37 | NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Attorney Stephen DeGenaro terminated. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(DeGenaro, Stephen) (Entered: 07/08/2022) |
| 2022-08-10 | 38 | ORDER of USCA (certified copy) as to 34 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court filed by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI; USCA Case Number 22-5130. (Attachment: # 1 Exhibit - Motion) (ztth) (Entered: 08/11/2022) |
| 2022-08-10 | 39 | MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. (ztth) (Entered: 08/11/2022) |
| 2022-08-16 | 40 | Joint STATUS REPORT by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Tilghman, Michael) (Entered: 08/16/2022) |
| 2022-08-24 | | MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice Plaintiff's 39 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) requires a "prisoner seeking to...appeal a judgment in a civil action...without prepayment of fees or security therefor, in addition to filing the [requisite] affidavit..., shall submit a certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal, obtained from the appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner is or was confined." It does not appear that Plaintiff has filed any such statement. Thus, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 8/24/2022. (lctjk1) (Entered: 08/24/2022) |
| 2022-08-24 | | MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the parties' 40 Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file a further joint status report by October 21, 2022, and every 60 days thereafter until the Court orders otherwise. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 8/24/2022. (lctjk1) (Entered: 08/24/2022) |
| 2022-08-25 | 41 | Supplemental Record on Appeal re Minute Order filed on 8/24/2022 transmitted to US Court of Appeals re 34 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court; USCA Case Number 22-5130. (ztth) Modified text and added docket entry relationship on 8/29/2022 (ztth). (Entered: 08/25/2022) |
| 2022-09-06 | 42 | NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL by Bradley Silverman on behalf of All Defendants Substituting for attorney Michael A. Tilghman II (Silverman, Bradley) (Entered: 09/06/2022) |
| 2022-09-20 | 43 | MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. (ztth) (Entered: 09/20/2022) |
| 2022-09-20 | 44 | PRISONER TRUST FUND ACCOUNT STATEMENT by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. (ztth) (Entered: 09/20/2022) |
| 2022-09-20 | | MINUTE ORDER granting Plaintiff's 43 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis . Upon consideration of Plaintiff's 43 motion, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this Order promptly to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 9/20/2022. (lctjk1) (Entered: 09/20/2022) |
| 2022-09-21 | 45 | Supplemental Record on Appeal transmitted to US Court of Appeals re Order on Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis; USCA Case Number 22-5130. (ztth) (Entered: 09/21/2022) |
| 2022-10-14 | | USCA Case Number 22-5130 for 47 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court, filed by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. (ztth) (Entered: 12/21/2022) |
| 2022-10-18 | 47 | NOTICE OF APPEAL TO DC CIRCUIT COURT as to MINUTE Order on Motion for Leave to File, MINUTE Order on Motion for Summary Judgment by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. Fee Status: IFP. Parties have been notified. "lEAVE TO FILE GRANTED" signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 10/18/2022. (ztth) (Entered: 10/21/2022) |
| 2022-10-21 | 46 | MOTION for Extension of Time to File JSR by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Silverman, Bradley) (Entered: 10/21/2022) |
| 2022-10-21 | 48 | Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed (Memorandum Opinion), and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The fee was not paid because it was filed in forma pauperis re USCA case number 22-5130 re 47 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court. (ztth) (Entered: 10/21/2022) |
| 2022-10-24 | | MINUTE ORDER treating as opposed and granting Defendants' 46 Motion for Extension of Time. It is hereby ORDERED, nunc pro tunc and for good cause shown, that Defendants' motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint status report by November 4, 2022. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 10/24/2022. (lctjk1) (Entered: 10/24/2022) |
| 2022-10-25 | 49 | ORDER of USCA as to 47 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court, filed by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI; USCA Case Number 22-5130. (ztth); Modified Date filed on 11/8/2022 (ztth). (Entered: 10/26/2022) |
| 2022-10-26 | 49 | ORDER of USCA as to 47 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court, filed by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI; USCA Case Number 22-5130. (ztth) (Entered: 10/26/2022) |
| 2022-11-04 | 50 | Joint STATUS REPORT by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Silverman, Bradley) (Entered: 11/04/2022) |
| 2022-12-19 | 51 | MANDATE of USCA as to 34 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court filed by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI ; USCA Case Number 22-5130. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Order 10/25/2022)(znmw) (Entered: 12/19/2022) |
| 2023-01-03 | 52 | MOTION for Extension of Time to File Joint Status Report by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Silverman, Bradley) (Entered: 01/03/2023) |
| 2023-01-04 | | MINUTE ORDER granting Defendants' 52 Motion for Extension of Time. It is hereby ORDERED that, nunc pro tunc and for good cause shown, Defendants' motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the parties shall file their joint status report, per the Court's August 24, 2022 Minute Order, by January 5, 2023. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 1/4/2023. (lctjk1) (Entered: 01/04/2023) |
| 2023-01-05 | 53 | Joint STATUS REPORT by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Silverman, Bradley) (Entered: 01/05/2023) |
| 2023-03-06 | 54 | Joint STATUS REPORT by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Silverman, Bradley) (Entered: 03/06/2023) |
| 2023-04-21 | 55 | Joint STATUS REPORT by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Silverman, Bradley) (Entered: 04/21/2023) |
| 2023-06-21 | 56 | Joint STATUS REPORT by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Silverman, Bradley) (Entered: 06/21/2023) |
| 2023-07-14 | 57 | MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. "Leave to file GRANTED" by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 7/14/2023. (ztth) (Entered: 07/17/2023) |
| 2023-07-14 | 58 | MOTION for Summary Judgment by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. "Leave to file GRANTED" by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 7/14/2023. (ztth) (Entered: 07/17/2023) |
| 2023-07-18 | 59 | MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Summary Judgment by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Silverman, Bradley) (Entered: 07/18/2023) |
| 2023-07-18 | | MINUTE ORDER denying in part and reserving in part Plaintiff's 57 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction. Before the Court is Plaintiff's 57 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") or, alternatively, a Preliminary Injunction "to further prevent the government from altering or destroying any records or related documents associated with his FOIA request and case." ECF No. 57 at 1. Off the bat, the Court will deny the motion as far as it seeks a TRO. "A [TRO] is an extraordinary remedy, one that should be granted only when the moving party, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion." Sibley v. Obama , 810 F. Supp. 2d 309, 310 (D.D.C. 2011). To obtain such relief, "the moving party must demonstrate: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that the moving party would suffer irreparable injury if the [TRO] were not granted; (3) that such an order would not substantially injure other interested parties; and (4) that such an order furthers the public interest." Id. The standard to show an "irreparable injury" is demanding--"it must be both certain and great; and it must be actual and not theoretical." Baker DC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. , 102 F. Supp. 3d 194, 198 (D.D.C. 2015) (cleaned up). Plaintiff cannot carry this burden. For starters, he appears to misunderstand the record when he suggests "the FBI...admitted," as recounted in EOUSA's opposition to Plaintiff's 20 motion for summary judgment, that it had "altered, destroyed and manipulated evidence which was material to [Plaintiff's] investigation and prosecution." See ECF No. 57 at 2. Rather, the FBI withheld information under FOIA Exemption 7(A) in part because of the danger that, if released, that very information might be used "to alter or destroy evidence or create false evidence, which could call into question the validity of the evidence used during prosecution." ECF No. 26-1 ¶ 70. But more than that, Plaintiff can hardly show that he would suffer irreparable harm in the next 14 days without a TRO when the purported "admission" on which he bases his motion appeared on the docket nearly two years ago. See ECF No. 26; Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(2). For these reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's 57 motion is DENIED IN PART insofar as it seeks a TRO and RESERVED IN PART as far as it seeks a preliminary injunction. It is further ORDERED that, for good cause shown, Defendants' 59 motion for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's 57 motion for a preliminary injunction and 58 motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and Defendants' shall file such oppositions and any cross-motion for summary judgment by August 14, 2023. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 7/18/2023. (lctjk1) (Entered: 07/18/2023) |
| 2023-08-11 | 60 | RESPONSE re 58 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 57 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Silverman, Bradley) (Entered: 08/11/2023) |
| 2023-08-14 | | MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Defendants' 60 response to Plaintiff's 57 motion for a preliminary injunction and 58 motion for summary judgment, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file any reply in support of his motions by September 30, 2023, or else show good cause for an extension. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 8/14/2023. (lctjk1) (Entered: 08/14/2023) |
| 2023-08-24 | 61 | MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 58 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 57 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. "Leave to file GRANTED" by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 8/24/2023. (ztth) (Entered: 08/25/2023) |
| 2023-09-05 | 62 | Joint STATUS REPORT by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Silverman, Bradley) (Entered: 09/05/2023) |
| 2023-09-05 | | MINUTE ORDER granting Plaintiff's 61 Motion to Extend Time. Upon consideration of Plaintiff's 61 motion for an extension of time to file a reply in support of his 57 motion for a preliminary injunction and 58 motion for a summary judgment, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file any such reply by October 31, 2023. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 9/5/2023. (lctjk1) (Entered: 09/05/2023) |
| 2023-09-06 | | MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the parties' 62 Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the Court's previous order to file such reports every 60 days, see Minute Order of August 24, 2022, is STAYED pending resolution of Plaintiff's 57 and 58 motions for a preliminary injunction and for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 9/6/2023. (lctjk1) (Entered: 09/06/2023) |
| 2023-10-27 | 63 | REPLY to opposition to motion re 58 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A - K, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(ztth) (Entered: 10/31/2023) |
| 2023-11-14 | 64 | ORDER denying Plaintiff's 57 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and 58 Motion for Summary Judgment. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 11/14/2023. (lctjk1) (Entered: 11/14/2023) |
| 2023-11-27 | 65 | NOTICE OF APPEAL TO DC CIRCUIT COURT as to 64 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. Fee Status: No Fee. Parties have been notified. (ztth) (Entered: 11/30/2023) |
| 2023-11-30 | 66 | Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed (Memorandum Opinion), and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The fee remains to be paid and another notice will be transmitted when the fee has been paid in the District Court or motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis has been decided re 65 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court. (ztth) (Entered: 11/30/2023) |
| 2023-12-01 | | USCA Case Number 23-5286 for 65 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court filed by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. (znmw) (Entered: 12/04/2023) |
| 2024-04-05 | 67 | MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. (znmw) Modified date filed on 4/8/2024 (znmw). (Entered: 04/03/2024) |
| 2024-04-05 | 68 | ORDER of USCA as to 65 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court filed by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI ; referring motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis to the district court. USCA Case Number 23-5286. (znmw) Modified date filed on 4/8/2024 (znmw). (Entered: 04/08/2024) |
| 2024-04-08 | | MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice Plaintiff's 67 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) requires a "prisoner seeking to...appeal a judgment in a civil action...without prepayment of fees or security therefor, in addition to filing the [requisite] affidavit..., shall submit a certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal, obtained from the appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner is or was confined." It does not appear that Plaintiff has filed any such statement. Thus, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 4/8/2024. (lctjk1) (Entered: 04/08/2024) |
| 2024-04-09 | 69 | Supplemental Record on Appeal transmitted to US Court of Appeals re 4/8/2024 Order on Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis,,, ;USCA Case Number 23-5286. (zdp) (Entered: 04/09/2024) |
| 2024-04-23 | 70 | MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. "Leave to File Granted" Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 4/23/24 (zdp) (Entered: 04/24/2024) |
| 2024-04-25 | | MINUTE ORDER granting Plaintiff's 70 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. Upon consideration of Plaintiff's 67 and 70 motions, it is hereby ORDERED that the 70 motion is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to transmit a copy of this Order promptly to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 4/25/2024. (lctjk1) (Entered: 04/25/2024) |
| 2024-04-25 | 71 | Supplemental Record on Appeal transmitted to US Court of Appeals re Minute Order granting Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis; USCA Case Number 23-5286. (znmw) (Entered: 04/25/2024) |
| 2024-05-01 | 72 | MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. "LEAVE to file Granted" signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 5/3/2024 (zdp) (Entered: 05/06/2024) |
| 2024-07-02 | 73 | ORDER of USCA re collection of fees as to 65 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court filed by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI ; USCA Case Number 23-5286. (znmw) (Entered: 07/02/2024) |
| 2024-07-22 | 74 | MOTION to Compel by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. "Leave to File Granted" Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 7/22/2024 (zdp) (Entered: 07/22/2024) |
| 2024-07-22 | | MINUTE ORDER: To date, Plaintiff has been mailing filings directly to the Court, which is improper. To ensure they are docketed promptly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff direct any future filings to the Clerk's Office at the following mailing address: Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 333 Constitution Avenue, N.W, Room 1225, Washington, D.C. 20001. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 7/22/2024. (lctjk1) (Entered: 07/22/2024) |
| 2024-08-05 | 75 | RESPONSE re 74 MOTION to Compel filed by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Silverman, Bradley) (Entered: 08/05/2024) |
| 2024-08-14 | 76 | REPLY to opposition to motion re 74 MOTION to Compel filed by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. (zdp) (Entered: 08/19/2024) |
| 2024-08-19 | 77 | MOTION for Summary Judgment by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(zdp) (Entered: 08/19/2024) |
| 2024-08-27 | 78 | MANDATE of USCA as to 65 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court filed by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI ; USCA Case Number 23-5286. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Order 7/2/2024)(znmw) (Entered: 08/28/2024) |
| 2024-09-03 | 79 | RESPONSE re 77 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Silverman, Bradley) (Entered: 09/03/2024) |
| 2024-09-12 | 80 | REPLY to opposition to motion re 77 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. (zdp) (Entered: 09/18/2024) |
| 2024-12-06 | 81 | NOTICE by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS re 77 Motion for Summary Judgment (Silverman, Bradley) (Entered: 12/06/2024) |
| 2024-12-06 | 82 | MOTION to Compel by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. (zdp) (Entered: 12/11/2024) |
| 2024-12-19 | 83 | RESPONSE re 82 MOTION to Compel filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS. (Silverman, Bradley) (Entered: 12/19/2024) |
| 2024-12-30 | 84 | REPLY to opposition to motion re 82 Motion to Compel filed by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. (zdp) (Entered: 01/08/2025) |
| 2025-02-03 | | MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiff filed a motion to compel, ECF No. 74, seeking relief from this Court in three ways. First, Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendant EOUSA "to comply with the production schedule as ordered by the court." ECF No. 74 at 1. He contends that the parties agreed in a July 13, 2021, Status Report that EOUSA would "produce 350 pages of requested documents per month," yet EOUSA has consistently "produced less than half" that amount. Id. at 1-2. But EOUSA agreed to no such thing. Rather, it agreed to " process 350 pages" per month and make interim releases "until production is complete (approximately 238 years)." ECF No. 19 at 2 (emphasis added). Plaintiff does not argue EOUSA is failing to adhere to that schedule. And to the extent he argues the processing rate is unreasonable, the Court has already rejected such a challenge. See Min. Order of Feb. 18, 2022. Second, Plaintiff asks the Court to compel EOUSA to "[i]ncrease production to 5,000 documents per month" so that he may "review these documents in his lifetime." ECF No. 74 at 3. But Plaintiff has not shown extraordinary circumstances that would warrant expedited production. See 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(1); Negley v. DOJ , 305 F. Supp. 3d 36, 46-47 (D.D.C. 2018). On the specific facts here, that it will take EOUSA so long to process Plaintiff's massive requests (requests he has chosen not to narrow) that he is unlikely to see much of what he has requested does not, standing alone, justify an increase in EOUSA's processing rate. Third, Plaintiff asks that the Court order EOUSA "to prioritize the production of records based on the order of importance" he outlined in an April 3, 2023 letter. ECF No. 74 at 3; see id. at 10. That is a reasonable request, and as far as the Court can tell, EOUSA has been willing to prioritize the materials identified by Plaintiff in the past. See, e.g. , ECF No. 36 at 2; ECF No. 40 at 2. Thus, rather than order EOUSA to take any specific prioritization action at this point, the Court will order the parties to submit a joint status report updating it on whether they have come to an agreement on implementing Plaintiff's April 3, 2023 prioritization request. For all these reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's 74 Motion is DENIED insofar as it seeks an order compelling EOUSA to change its production rate, and it is DENIED without prejudice insofar as it requests specific prioritization of Plaintiffs requests by EOUSA. It is further ORDERED that the parties shall, by March 12, 2025, file a joint status report indicating whether they have come to an agreement as to the prioritization of Plaintiff's requests. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 2/3/2025. (lctjk1) (Entered: 02/03/2025) |
| 2025-02-03 | | MINUTE ORDER: Before the Court are Plaintiff's 77 Motion for Summary Judgment and 82 Motion to Compel. In both he argues that the FBI can no longer invoke FOIA Exemption 7(A)--which protects records "compiled for law enforcement purposes" the disclosure of which "could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings"--to justify its withholdings, because his direct appeals challenging his conviction have now concluded. See ECF No. 77 at 1; ECF No. 82 at 1; 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A). Thus, he argues, "no legal actions currently exist and Exemption (b)(7)(A) is no longer applicable," and the FBI must release the investigative files he seeks. ECF No. 82 at 1. "Summary judgment is appropriately granted when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movants and drawing all reasonable inferences accordingly, no reasonable jury could reach a verdict in their favor." Lopez v. Council on Am.-Islamic Rels. Action Network, Inc. , 826 F.3d 492, 496 (D.C. Cir. 2016). "The evidence presented must show 'that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'" Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). Plaintiff's motion provides no basis for the Court to grant summary judgment in his favor. Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, a relevant enforcement proceeding remains ongoing. Specifically, on January 16, 2024, Plaintiff moved to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and that motion remains pending. See United States v. Pawlowski , 17-cr-390 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2024), ECF No. 361. "A motion under § 2255 is a collateral attack on [Plaintiff's] conviction and sentence; as such, proceedings on the motion necessarily involve matters directly related to [his] criminal prosecution and conviction." King v. DOJ , 8-cv-1555 (HHK), 2009 WL 2951124, at *6 (D.D.C. Sept. 9, 2009); Sarno v. DOJ , 278 F. Supp. 3d 112, 126 (D.D.C. 2017) ("[Plaintiff's] § 2255 challenge to his conviction is an ongoing proceeding in which prosecutors must defend their prosecution and his convictions."). And "should his § 2255 motion succeed, a new trial would be a reasonable likelihood." Sarno , 278 F. Supp. 3d at 126. Therefore, such a motion "qualif[ies] as an enforcement proceeding for purposes of Exemption 7(A)," and the exemption still applies. Van Chase v. Bureau of Indian Affs. , 18-cv-2902 (EGS), 2020 WL 3489469, at *4 (D.D.C. June 26, 2020) (citation omitted). Plaintiff responds by vaguely claiming that the information the FBI is withholding "ha[s] already been publicly disclosed" during his trial and appeal. ECF No. 84 at 1 (citing Cottone v. Reno , 193 F.3d 550, 554 (D.C. Cir. 1999)). But that public-domain argument does not get Plaintiff far here, because "he provides no evidence that 'the exact portions' of the specific documents at issue are in fact in the permanent public domain, as required by" Cottone . King , 2009 WL 2951124, at *5. The Court acknowledges that Plaintiff is caught in a Catch-22: he seeks documents to challenge his conviction, yet he cannot get them until those challenges have concluded. But "FOIA" simply is no "substitute for discovery in criminal cases or in habeas proceedings." Roth v. DOJ , 642 F.3d 1161, 1177 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Because Plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment on the FBI's proffered justification for withholding the records under 7(A), nor must the agency be compelled to produce those materials at this point, it is hereby ORDERED that the 77 motion for summary judgment and 82 motion to compel are DENIED. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 2/3/2025. (lctjk1) (Entered: 02/03/2025) |
| 2025-02-18 | 85 | MOTION for Reconsideration re 2/3/2025 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,, Order on Motion to Compel, 2/3/2025 Order on Motion to Compel,,, Set/Reset Deadlines, by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. (zdp) (Entered: 02/21/2025) |
| 2025-03-07 | 86 | RESPONSE re 85 MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion to Compel,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Order on Motion to Compel,,,,,,,,,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,,,,,,,,,,, filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS. (Attachments: # 1 Wilkinson Decl.)(Silverman, Bradley) (Entered: 03/07/2025) |
| 2025-03-07 | 87 | Memorandum in opposition to re 85 Motion for Reconsideration filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Graham-Oliver, Heather) (Entered: 03/07/2025) |
| 2025-03-12 | 88 | MOTION for Order Relieving from Joint Status Requirements by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS. (Truong, John) (Entered: 03/12/2025) |
| 2025-03-12 | 89 | STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS. (Truong, John) (Entered: 03/12/2025) |
| 2025-03-12 | 90 | MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to February 3, 2025 Minute Order by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS. (Truong, John) (Entered: 03/12/2025) |
| 2025-03-14 | | MINUTE ORDER: On February 3, 2025, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff's motion to compel insofar as it asked the Court to "order" Defendant EOUSA to prioritize the production of records based on the order of importance that Plaintiff outlined in an April 3, 2023 letter. See Min. Order of Feb. 3, 2025. Instead, the Court ordered the parties to file a joint status report indicating whether they can agree as to the prioritization of Plaintiffs requests. In response, EOUSA (1) moved to be relieved of its obligation to file a joint status report, given Plaintiff's incarcerated status; (2) filed its own status report, explaining that "it was not possible to export the records in a manner that made [Plaintiff's] categories easily identifiable," and because "EOUSA must review each document to determine if it falls into one of the priority categories," Plaintiff's prioritization request "adds another layer of review" that slows down, rather than expedites, the review process; and (3) moved for additional time to respond to the "prioritization issue," to the extent the Court was dissatisfied with its explanation. ECF Nos. 88-90. It is hereby ORDERED that EOUSA's motion to be relieved of its obligation to file a joint status report in response to the Court's February 3, 2025 order is GRANTED, for good cause shown, in light of the logistical difficulties in communicating with Plaintiff. It is further ORDERED that EOUSA's motion for additional time is GRANTED, for good cause as described in the motion. It is further ORDERED that by April 14, 2025, EOUSA shall file a further status report explaining in more detail why Plaintiff's attempt to prioritize the records he seeks--a request the government commonly makes of FOIA requestors--is not helpful in this case. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 3/14/2025. (lctjk1) (Entered: 03/14/2025) |
| 2025-03-17 | 91 | REPLY to opposition to motion re 85 Motion for Reconsideration filed by EDWIN PAWLOWSKI. (zdp) (Entered: 03/20/2025) |
 Hide Docket Events |
