FOIA Activity: 8 New Procedural or Substantive Decisions

We have added 8 decisions of a procedural or substantive nature filed between July 10, 2022 and July 16, 2022. These are associated with 7 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. CAE 1:2022cv00837 — Caetano v. Internal Revenue Service et al

   • July 12, 2022: ORDER GRANTING [2] Motion to Proceed IFP and Directing Payment of Inmate Filing Fee by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and Directing Clerk of Court to Issue Prisoner New Case Documents signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 7/12/2022. (Attachments: # 1 IFP Motion). (Lawrence, A)
2. DC 1:2020cv00377 — ADAMS v. UNITED STATES CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY et al

   • July 14, 2022: MEMORANDUM ORDER re Defendants' [33] Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's [41] Motion to Take Judicial Notice. See attached Order for details. Signed by Judge Trevor N. McFadden on 7/14/22. (lctnm3)
3. NYN 5:2021cv01180 — Checksfield v. Internal Revenue Service

   • July 13, 2022: DECISION AND ORDER that Defendant's [18] motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Section 1983 claim is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff's FOIA claim shall be DISMISSED with prejudice, UNLESS, within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of this Decision and Order, Plaintiff files an AMENDED COMPLAINT that cures the pleading defects identified in this Decision and Order. Any Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff must be a complete pleading, which will supersede his original Compl aint in all respects, and which may not incorporate any portion of his original Complaint by reference. In the event that Plaintiff should fail to file an Amended Complaint that complies with the terms of this Decision and Order as set forth above, the Clerk shall enter Judgment dismissing this action without further Order of this Court. Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 7/13/2022. (Copy served upon plaintiff via regular mail) (sal )
4. NYS 1:2022cv02858 — Frost v. United States Department of Homeland Security

   • July 11, 2022: ORDER OF DISMISSAL: Plaintiff's complaint, filed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. All other pending matters in this case are denied. The Court certifies un der 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 7/11/22) (rdz)
   • July 11, 2022: CIVIL JUDGMENT: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the complaint is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the Court's judgm ent would not be taken in good faith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mail a copy of this judgment to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 7/11/22) (Attachments: # 1 PRO SE APPEAL PACKAGE) (rdz)
5. OHN 3:2021cv01652 — Huddle v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al

   • July 11, 2022: Memorandum Opinion and Order : Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot in that the docket indicate s plaintiff paid the full filing fee in the case. And his motion for appointment of counsel is also denied as appointment of counsel in civil cases is not a constitutional right and is warranted only in "exceptional circumstances," which I do not find exist here. re [3] , [4] , [6] Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick on 7/11/22. (M,SM)
6. PAM 3:2018cv02375 — Stiso v. United States Department Of Justice et al

   • July 15, 2022: ORDER ADOPTING (Doc. 12) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Clerk of Court directed to CLOSE THIS CASE. Signed by Honorable Robert D. Mariani on 7/15/22. (jam)
7. WAW 2:2019cv00334 — Davis Wright Tremaine LLP v. United States Customs and Border Protection

   • July 14, 2022: ORDER granting Parties' [63] Stipulated MOTION for Order of Dismissal. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (SB)