Skip to content

Case Detail

[Subscribe to updates]
Case TitleMCKATHAN v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY et al
DistrictDistrict of Columbia
CityWashington, DC
Case Number1:2022cv01865
Date Filed2022-06-27
Date ClosedOpen
JudgeJudge Dabney L. Friedrich
PlaintiffDENZIL E. MCKATHAN
Case DescriptionDenzil McKathan submitted a FOIA requests to the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, and the Department of Justice for records concerning himself. The agencies acknowledged receipt of the requests but after hearing nothing further from any of the agencies, McKathan filed suit.
Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Recovery of Costs

DefendantUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
DefendantUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DefendantEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS
DefendantADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES COURTS
DefendantUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Criminal Division
Documents
Docket
Complaint
Complaint attachment 1
Complaint attachment 2
User-contributed Documents
 
Docket Events (Hide)
Date FiledDoc #Docket Text

2022-06-271COMPLAINT against ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES COURTS, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 202466) filed by DENZIL E. MCKATHAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(zed) (Entered: 06/30/2022)
2022-06-29SUMMONS (7) Issued as to ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES COURTS, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (zed) (Entered: 06/30/2022)
2022-07-012STANDARD ORDER for Civil Cases. See text for details. Signed by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on July 1, 2022. (lcdlf3) (Entered: 07/01/2022)
2022-07-153RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 07/15/2022. (Jubran, Lewis) (Entered: 07/15/2022)
2022-08-096AFFIDAVIT of Service by DENZIL E. MCKATHAN. (zed) (Entered: 08/18/2022)
2022-08-104NOTICE of Appearance by Thomas Anthony Quinn on behalf of All Defendants (Quinn, Thomas) (Entered: 08/10/2022)
2022-08-155MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES COURTS, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Quinn, Thomas) (Entered: 08/15/2022)
2022-08-15MINUTE ORDER granting the defendants' 5 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Complaint. The defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the plaintiff's complaint on or before September 22, 2022. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on August 15, 2022. (lcdlf3) (Entered: 08/15/2022)
2022-09-217MOTION for Extension of Time to file Response to Complaint by ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES COURTS, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Quinn, Thomas) (Entered: 09/21/2022)
2022-09-21MINUTE ORDER granting the defendants' 7 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Complaint. The defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the plaintiff's complaint on or before October 21, 2022. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on September 21, 2022. (lcdlf2) (Entered: 09/21/2022)
2022-09-21Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 10/21/2022, (zjch, ) (Entered: 09/22/2022)
2022-10-218MOTION to Dismiss by ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES COURTS. (Quinn, Thomas) (Entered: 10/21/2022)
2022-10-219MOTION for Extension of Time to by EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Quinn, Thomas) (Entered: 10/21/2022)
2022-10-21MINUTE ORDER. Pursuant to Fox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1988), the plaintiff is advised that failure to respond to the defendant's pending 8 Motion to Dismiss by November 4, 2022 may result in the Court (1) treating the motion as conceded, (2) ruling on the defendant's motion based on the defendant's arguments alone; or (3) dismissing the plaintiff's claims for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Minute Order to the plaintiff's address of record. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on October 21, 2022. (lcdlf2) (Entered: 10/21/2022)
2022-10-21MINUTE ORDER granting the defendants' 9 Motion for Extension of Time. The defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the plaintiff's complaint on or before November 18, 2022. No further extensions will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on October 21, 2022. (lcdlf2) (Entered: 10/21/2022)
2022-10-21Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 11/18/2022, Response to Dispositive Motions due by 11/4/2022. (zjch, ) (Entered: 10/24/2022)
2022-10-3110MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 8 MOTION to Dismiss by DENZIL E. MCKATHAN. (zed) (Entered: 11/04/2022)
2022-11-04MINUTE ORDER granting the plaintiff's 10 Motion for Extension of Time. The plaintiff shall file a response to the motion to dismiss on or before November 30, 2022. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on November 4, 2022. (lcdlf2) (Entered: 11/04/2022)
2022-11-0711Memorandum in opposition to re 8 Motion to Dismiss filed by DENZIL E. MCKATHAN. (zed) (Entered: 11/08/2022)
2022-11-1312MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 8 MOTION to Dismiss by ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES COURTS. (Quinn, Thomas) (Entered: 11/13/2022)
2022-11-14MINUTE ORDER granting the defendant's 12 Motion for Extension of Time. The Administrative Office of United States Courts shall file its reply brief on or before November 30, 2022. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on November 14, 2022. (lcdlf2) (Entered: 11/14/2022)
2022-11-1813ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.(Quinn, Thomas) (Entered: 11/18/2022)
2022-11-1814ENTERED IN ERROR.....MOTION to Dismiss by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Quinn, Thomas) Modified on 11/21/2022. Counsel has refiled pleading. (zed). (Entered: 11/18/2022)
2022-11-1815MOTION to Dismiss by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Quinn, Thomas) (Entered: 11/18/2022)
2022-11-21MINUTE ORDER. Pursuant to Fox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1988), the plaintiff is advised that failure to respond to the defendant's pending 15 Motion to Dismiss by December 2, 2022 may result in the Court (1) treating the motion as conceded, (2) ruling on the defendant's motion based on the defendant's arguments alone; or (3) dismissing the plaintiff's claims for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Minute Order to the plaintiff's address of record. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on November 21, 2022. (lcdlf2) (Entered: 11/21/2022)
2022-12-0516Memorandum in opposition to re 15 Motion to Dismiss filed by DENZIL E. MCKATHAN. (znmw) (Entered: 12/07/2022)
2022-12-0917MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 15 MOTION to Dismiss by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Quinn, Thomas) (Entered: 12/09/2022)
2022-12-12MINUTE ORDER granting the Department of State's 17 Motion for Extension of Time. The Department of State shall file its reply brief in support of its 15 motion to dismiss on or before December 23, 2022. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on December 12, 2022. (lcdlf2) (Entered: 12/12/2022)
2022-12-2118MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 15 MOTION to Dismiss by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Quinn, Thomas) (Entered: 12/21/2022)
2022-12-22MINUTE ORDER granting the Department of State's 18 Motion for Extension of Time. The Department of State shall file its reply brief in support of its 15 motion to dismiss on or before January 20, 2023. No further extensions will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on December 22, 2022. (lcdlf2) (Entered: 12/22/2022)
2023-01-2019REPLY to opposition to motion re 14 MOTION to Dismiss , 15 MOTION to Dismiss filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Quinn, Thomas) (Entered: 01/20/2023)
2023-03-08MINUTE ORDER denying the Administrative Office's 8 and the Department of State's 15 Motions to Dismiss. First, as to the AO's motion, it is unclear whether the motion seeks dismissal of the complaint in full or in part: the motion asks for the Court "to dismiss Plaintiff's claims against it under the Freedom of Information Act" and then, in the next sentence, states that "[t]herefore, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss should be granted and Plaintiffs' [sic] claims dismissed." Mot. at 1, Dkt. 8; see also id. at 7 (proposed order requesting dismissal of "the claims in Plaintiff's complaint against the Administrative Office"). In any event, the pro se complaint clearly states that the FOIA claim is brought against the other defendants in the lawsuit, not the AO. See Dkt. 1 at 8 ("Count 1: Freedom of Information Act (as to Defendants DHS, DOS, EOUSA, DOJ)"). The pro se plaintiff plainly flagged the government's error in his opposition--noting that he instead brought two other claims against the AO, neither of which the AO's motion addressed, see Dkt. 11--and the AO never filed a reply, despite asking for and receiving an extension to do so, see Dkt. 12; Minute Order of November 14, 2022. Second, as to State's motion, which seeks dismissal only of the FOIA claim, the government relies principally on an attached declaration that it provides no authority for considering at the motion to dismiss stage. Given that other claims against State will be pending regardless, and given that all other defendants remain in the lawsuit, the Court will not exercise its discretion to sua sponte convert this motion into a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the motions are DENIED. The AO and State are directed to answer the complaint on or before March 22, 2023. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on March 8, 2023. (lcdlf2) (Entered: 03/08/2023)
2023-03-08Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 3/22/2023 (zjch, ) (Entered: 03/09/2023)
2023-03-2120MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES COURTS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Quinn, Thomas) (Entered: 03/21/2023)
2023-03-21MINUTE ORDER granting the two defendants' 20 Motion for Extension of Time. The defendants shall answer the complaint on or before April 21, 2023. However, given the defendants' already numerous requests for extensions of time--including one motion for an extension to file a reply brief that the defendant ultimately never filed, see Minute Order of March 8, 2023--no further extensions will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on March 21, 2023. (lcdlf2) (Entered: 03/21/2023)
2023-03-21Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 4/21/2023, (zjch, ) (Entered: 03/22/2023)
2023-04-2121Amended ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES COURTS, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE.(Quinn, Thomas) (Entered: 04/21/2023)
2023-04-21VACATED PURSUANT TO MINUTE ORDER ISSUED 5/5/2023.....MINUTE ORDER requiring the parties to MEET AND CONFER and file a Meet and Confer report proposing a schedule for further proceedings. The report should address the status of the plaintiff's FOIA request, including the anticipated number of documents responsive to the request and the anticipated date(s) for release of the requested documents. The parties shall file the Meet and Confer report on or before May 5, 2023. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on April 21, 2023. (lcdlf2) Modified on 5/8/2023 (zjch, ). (Entered: 04/21/2023)
2023-05-0422MOTION for Extension of Time to File Status Report by ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES COURTS, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Truong, John) (Entered: 05/04/2023)
2023-05-0423MOTION to Vacate the Meet and Confer Requirement of April 21, 2023 Min. Order by ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES COURTS, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Truong, John) Modified event title on 5/9/2023 (znmw). Added MOTION for Extension of Time to on 5/9/2023 (znmw). (Entered: 05/04/2023)
2023-05-05MINUTE ORDER granting the defendants' 22 Motion for Extension of Time and 23 Motion for Order. The April 21, 2023 Minute Order is VACATED. The defendants are instead directed to provide a status report to the Court on or before June 2, 2023, containing the information requested in the Court's prior minute order. The plaintiff shall file a response, if any, on or before June 16, 2023. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on May 5, 2023. (lcdlf2) (Entered: 05/05/2023)
2023-05-05Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 6/16/2023 (zjch, ) (Entered: 05/08/2023)
2023-06-0124STATUS REPORT by ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES COURTS, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, part 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, part 2)(Quinn, Thomas) (Entered: 06/01/2023)
2023-06-2625RESPONSE re 24 Status Report filed by DENZIL E. MCKATHAN. (zed) (Entered: 06/27/2023)
2023-06-27MINUTE ORDER. The defendants are directed to reply to the plaintiff's 25 Response on or before July 5, 2023. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on June 27, 2023. (lcdlf2) (Entered: 06/27/2023)
2023-06-27Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 7/5/2023. (zjch, ) (Entered: 06/28/2023)
2023-06-3026MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES COURTS, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Truong, John) (Entered: 06/30/2023)
2023-06-30MINUTE ORDER granting the defendants' 26 Motion for Extension of Time. The defendants are directed to reply to the plaintiff's 25 Response on or before July 12, 2023. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on June 30, 2023. (lcdlf2) (Entered: 06/30/2023)
2023-07-1227REPLY re 24 Status Report filed by ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES COURTS, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Truong, John) Modified docket event/text on 7/13/2023 (zed). (Entered: 07/12/2023)
2023-07-1328NOTICE of Appearance by Michael David Wagner on behalf of All Defendants (Wagner, Michael) (Entered: 07/13/2023)
2023-07-13MINUTE ORDER. The pro se plaintiff, in his 25 Response, asks the Court to "authorize limited discovery," "order a Vaughn Index to be created," or set "an expedited summary judgment briefing schedule." Dkt. 25 at 6. The Court thus construes the plaintiff's response as a motion requesting that relief, with the grounds stated in the remainder of the 25 Response. The defendants are ORDERED to file, on or before July 27, 2023, an opposition to the motion addressing the plaintiff's requested relief and providing supporting authority. The opposition should address the plaintiff's claims under FOIA, the First Amendment, and the common law right of access. Legal arguments aside from the request for discovery, a Vaughn index, and an expedited briefing schedule will be addressed upon the filing of any dispositive motions. Additionally, the defendants refer in their 26 Reply to a number of potential next steps in the litigation, including production of documents and the filing of a motion to dismiss. The defendants are accordingly ORDERED to file, together with the opposition on or before July 27, 2023, a status report proposing next steps in light of the parties' filings to date. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on July 13, 2023. (lcdlf2) (Entered: 07/13/2023)
2023-07-2529Proposed MOTION for Extension of Time to 8/24/23 by ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES COURTS, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Wagner, Michael) (Entered: 07/25/2023)
2023-07-25MINUTE ORDER granting the defendants' 29 Motion for Extension of Time. The defendants shall, on or before August 24, 2023, file (1) an opposition to the plaintiff's 25 Motions as construed by the Court in its July 13, 2023 Minute Order, and (2) any dispositive motions. No further extensions will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on July 25, 2023. (lcdlf2) (Entered: 07/25/2023)
2023-07-2830Amended STATUS REPORT by ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES COURTS, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Wagner, Michael) (Entered: 07/28/2023)
2023-08-2431Partial MOTION for Summary Judgment and MOTION to Dismiss and response to Plaintiff's motion by ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES COURTS, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix TOC, # 2 Appendix TOA, # 3 Memorandum in Support Memo, # 4 Statement of Facts SUMF, # 5 Appendix Exhibit List, # 6 Exhibit 1, # 7 Exhibit 2, # 8 Exhibit 3, # 9 Text of Proposed Order)(Wagner, Michael). Added MOTION to Dismiss on 8/28/2023 (zed). (Entered: 08/24/2023)
2023-08-2432CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES COURTS, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE re 31 Partial MOTION for Summary Judgment and motion to dismiss and response to Plaintiff's motion . (Wagner, Michael) (Entered: 08/24/2023)
2023-08-24MINUTE ORDER. Before the Court is the defendants' 31 Partial Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment. Pursuant to Fox v. Strickland , 837 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1988), the plaintiff is advised that failure to respond to the defendants' 31 Partial Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment may result in the Court (1) treating the motion as conceded, (2) ruling on the defendants' motion based on the defendants' arguments alone; or (3) dismissing the plaintiff's claims for failure to prosecute. Further, pursuant to Neal v. Kelly , 963 F.2d 453 (D.C. Cir. 1992), the Court reminds the plaintiff that on a motion for summary judgment, "any factual assertions in the movant's affidavits will be accepted as being true unless [the opposing party] submits his own affidavits or other documentary evidence contradicting the assertion." Id. at 456. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e), if a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may: (1) give an opportunity to properly support or address the fact; (2) consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion; (3) grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials--including the facts considered undisputed--show that the movant is entitled to it; or (4) issue any other appropriate order. Thus, failure to respond to the defendants' motion in this case carries with it the risk that the case will be dismissed or that judgment will be entered for the defendants. Accordingly, the plaintiff shall file any response to the defendants' 31 Partial Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment on or before September 7, 2023; and the defendants shall file any reply in support of their 31 Partial Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment on or before September 14, 2023. The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this minute order to the plaintiff's address on record. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on August 24, 2023. (lcdlf2) (Entered: 08/24/2023)
2023-08-24Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff shall file any response to the defendants' 31 Partial Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment on or before September 7, 2023; and the defendants shall file any reply in support of their 31 Partial Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment on or before September 14, 2023. (zsmc) (Entered: 08/25/2023)
2023-09-1133Memorandum in opposition to re 31 Motion for Summary Judgment,,, Motion to Dismiss,, filed by DENZIL E. MCKATHAN. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibits)(zjm) (Entered: 09/14/2023)
2023-09-1434MOTION for Extension of Time to September 21, 2023 by ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES COURTS, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Wagner, Michael) (Entered: 09/14/2023)
2023-09-14MINUTE ORDER granting the defendants' 34 Motion for Extension of Time. The defendants shall file their combined reply to the plaintiff's 33 opposition on or before September 21, 2023. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on September 14, 2023. (lcdlf2) (Entered: 09/14/2023)
2023-09-15Set/Reset Deadlines: Reply due by 9/21/2023. (smc) (Entered: 09/15/2023)
2023-09-2135REPLY to opposition to motion re 31 Partial MOTION for Summary Judgment and motion to dismiss and response to Plaintiff's motion MOTION to Dismiss filed by ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES COURTS, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex A 2d Weetman Decl, # 2 Exhibit Ex B EOUSA Ltr, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Wagner, Michael) (Entered: 09/21/2023)
2023-11-0636MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by DENZIL E. MCKATHAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(mg) (Entered: 11/08/2023)
2023-11-08MINUTE ORDER denying the plaintiff's 36 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. The plaintiff, proceeding pro se , has moved for a preliminary injunction against defendants the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO), seeking to "enjoin EOUSA and AO from continuing to withhold" (1) "redacted information" described in Exhibit A (an October 5, 2016 email); and (2) "any other records which are responsive to Plaintiff's records requests attached to the complaint." Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at 12, Dkt. 36. The Court will deny the motion. By way of brief background, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, the plaintiff moved under Rule 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to reopen his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings "due to unlawful and unconstitutional collusion between certain judicial agents and executive branch agents, and spoliation of relevant evidence"—information he allegedly learned in June 2023. Pet.'s Second Mot. Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) & 60(b)(6), McKathan v. United States , No. 14-cr-290 (S.D. Ala.), Dkt. 175. The government moved for a more definite statement because the plaintiff's "cryptic and ambiguous" motion prevented "the United States [from] reasonably prepar[ing] a proper response to the allegations raised in McKathan's motion." Mot. for a More Definite Statement at 23, McKathan , No. 14-cr-290, Dkt. 179. The district court granted the government's motion and ordered the plaintiff to file on or before November 27, 2023 an amended motion with more specific information, including copies of relevant communications, identities of executive and judicial agents, and an explanation for how the plaintiff became aware of the alleged conduct in June 2023. See Order of Oct. 26, 2023, McKathan , No. 14-cr-290, Dkt. 180. The plaintiff now moves in this Court for a preliminary injunction. See Dkt. 36. A preliminary injunction is "an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief." Sherley v. Sebelius , 644 F.3d 388, 392 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Winter v. NRDC , 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008)). To prevail, a party seeking preliminary relief must make a "clear showing that four factors, taken together, warrant relief: likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, a balance of the equities in its favor, and accord with the public interest." League of Women Voters of U.S. v. Newby , 838 F.3d 1, 6 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (cleaned up). The plaintiff "bear[s] the burdens of production and persuasion." Qualls v. Rumsfeld , 357 F. Supp. 2d 274, 281 (D.D.C. 2005) (citing Cobell v. Norton , 391 F.3d 251, 258 (D.C. Cir. 2004)). First, the plaintiff has failed to show a likelihood of irreparable harm, which is alone sufficient to defeat his motion for a preliminary injunction. See Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England , 454 F.3d 290, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2006). The D.C. Circuit "has set a high standard for irreparable injury." Mdewakanton Sioux Indians of Minn. v. Zinke , 255 F. Supp. 3d 48, 52 (D.D.C. 2017) (quoting Chaplaincy , 454 F.3d at 297). "First, the injury must be both certain and great; it must be actual and not theoretical. The moving party must show the injury complained of is of such imminence that there is a clear and present need for equitable relief to prevent irreparable harm. Second, the injury must be beyond remediation." Chaplaincy , 454 F.3d at 297 (cleaned up). For the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction ordering an agency to fulfill its obligations by a date certain, "[c]ourts in our district have generally found irreparable harm . . . only where the requested documents are 'time-sensitive and highly probative, or even essential to the integrity, of an imminent event, after which event the utility of the records would be lessened or lost.'" Heritage Found. v. EPA , No. 23-cv-748, 2023 WL 2954418, at *4 (D.D.C. Apr. 14, 2023) (quoting N.Y. Times Co. v. Def. Health Agency , No. 21-cv-566, 2021 WL 1614817, at *8 (D.D.C. Apr. 25, 2021)). For example, "courts have granted preliminary injunctions in cases seeking documents regarding" an imminent presidential election, decennial census, and "time-limited impeachment process." Id. (citing cases). Here, the plaintiff's basis for irreparable harm is that he "has been ordered to file a more definite [R]ule 60(b) motion . . . on or before November 27, 2023," and without the records requested, he "cannot comply by the deadline." Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at 4. But this deadline arose because the plaintiff filed a conclusory motion to reopen in the District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. He presents no evidence that he could not withdraw the motion to reopen without prejudice and then refile if he receives the requested records in this case in the ordinary course. The plaintiff presents no evidence that "the utility of the records would be lessened or lost" were he to later refile a motion to reopen. Heritage Found. , 2023 WL 2954418, at *4. Further, on the present record, "any connection between [the plaintiff's] FOIA request and his continued incarceration is highly speculative" and thus not a basis for irreparable harm. Flee-Garcia v. DOJ , No. 19-cv-1420, 2020 WL 956470, at *2 (D.D.C. Feb. 27, 2020). Indeed, the plaintiff has failed to point to any other evidence suggesting an imminent need for the requested records, and without explanation, he attaches to his motion an October 5, 2016 email, further underscoring his lack of a time-sensitive need for the records. See Chaplaincy , 454 F.3d at 297. Second, the balance of the equities and the public interest militate against entering a preliminary injunction here. Granting this preliminary injunction would effectively grant the plaintiff's request expedited status, jumping the line ahead of other requests. See Nation Mag. v. Dept of State , 805 F. Supp. 68, 74 (D.D.C. 1992) (noting as against the public interest that the reordering of request processing under a FOIA preliminary injunction "would severely jeopardize the public's interest in an orderly, fair, and efficient administrative of the FOIA"). Further, granting a preliminary injunction would lend this Court's imprimatur to the strategy of filing a vague motion in parallel litigation, generating a deadline by which the plaintiff must clarify, and leveraging that deadline in a related case. Given the plaintiff has failed to show irreparable harm or that the balance of the equities and public interest are in his favor, the Court does not need to reach the plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits before denying his motion. The plaintiff's 36 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is thus DENIED. So Ordered by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on November 8, 2023. (lcdlf2) (Entered: 11/08/2023)
Hide Docket Events
by FOIA Project Staff
Skip to toolbar