Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Randolph Moss has ruled that the U.S. Postal Inspection Service properly withheld some records from Hassan Ali Pejouhesh in response to his request for records about his conviction and that Pejouhesh does not have standing to challenge the agency's records retention policy allowing the agency to destroy investigative records after litigation connected to an investigation is complete. The agency located 61 pages of responsive material. It released 23 pages with redactions under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy), and Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records) and withheld 17 pages entirely under Exemptions 6 and 7(C) as well as Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods or techniques). Pejouhesh filed an administrative appeal, arguing that the agency's search was inadequate because it did not find records that should have existed. The agency then told Pejouhesh that hard copy records had been destroyed once he exhausted the appeals of his conviction. Although Pejouhesh had failed to file an opposition to the agency's summary judgment motion, Moss nevertheless assessed the agency's claims on his behalf. Moss evaluated Pejouhesh's challenge to the agency's records retention policy as a policy and practice claim. Moss found Pejouhesh "has failed to otherwise explain how he has standing to seek injunctive or declaratory relief. With respect to any records Plaintiff sought that were not preserved, those records are gone, and neither an injunction nor a declaratory judgment can remedy that loss." Moss then found the agency had properly withheld records under Exemption 6 but indicated that there were problems with its withholdings under Exemption 7. He explained that on the present record "the Court cannot assess how Exemption 7(C) applies to the 'third party statements' that the Postal Service elected to withhold. To be sure, to the extent those statements disclose the names or other identifying information about witnesses, that information likely falls within the scope of the exemption, and it is also possible that everything contained in those statements could be used to identify a witness. It is also possible, however, that substantial portions of those statements do not raise any plausible privacy concern." As to the Exemption 7(E) claims, the agency claimed that the D.C. Circuit's decision in Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. International Boundary and Water Commission ("PEER"), 740 F. 3d 195 (D.C. Cir. 2014), brought up the question of whether the "risk of circumvention of the law" prong of Exemption 7(E) applied to "guidelines" or whether it also applies to "techniques and procedures." The agency suggested that a Second Circuit ruling properly interpreted the risk of circumvention prong to apply only to guidelines. But Moss indicated that "what the Postal Service fails to note, however, is that in the PEER case, the D.C. Circuit �" after noting the split in authority �" went on to say: 'This court has applied the "risk of circumvention of the law" requirement both to records containing guidelines and to records containing techniques and procedures.' That is the law of this Circuit, and this Court is bound to apply it."
Issues: Exemption 7(E) - Prosecutorial guidelines - Risk of circumvention, Litigation - Jurisdiction - Standing

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Randolph Moss has finally ruled in favor of the U.S. Postal Service in a case brought by Hassan Ali Pejouhesh for records concerning his prosecution and conviction for aiding and abetting bank fraud, possession of stolen mail, and identity theft. The agency located 61 pages, released 37 pages with redactions, and withheld 17 pages in full. In his earlier decisions in the case, Moss faulted the adequacy of the agency's search as well as some of its exemption claims. The agency withheld third-party statements under Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records). But after reviewing them, Moss concluded that the agency appeared to have already disclosed them in a public docket. He noted that the agency's affidavit "contains account numbers, email addresses and home addresses, none of which are redacted. If the affidavits that the Postal Service has withheld in part from Plaintiff is already 'a permanent record,' and the Postal Service's invocation of Exemption 7(C) precluded by the public domain doctrine." He sent the withheld records back to the agency to compare them to the records already disclosed in the public docket. He reviewed the Operation Plan in camera and concluded that it was entirely protected by Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques). Moss pointed out that "having reviewed the Plan, the Court finds that it served the law enforcement purpose of memorializing a common plan for Postal Inspection Service officers to follow when arresting Plaintiff and executing a search warrant." He added that "although in a general sense, the kinds of techniques described in the Plan may not be novel or secret, but the details contained in the Plan, if disclosed, could assist criminals in evading detection or arrest."
Issues: Exemption 7(E) - Investigative methods or techniques

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2017-08-15		Initiating Pleading & IFP Application Received on 8/15/2017. (jd) (Entered: 08/24/2017)
2017-08-15	1	COMPLAINT against UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE filed by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement, # 2 Envelope)(jd) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/19/2017: # 3 Civil Cover Sheet) (jd). (Note: Filer did not submit pg. 5 of Complaint) Modified on 10/27/2017 (jd). (Entered: 08/24/2017)
2017-08-15	2	MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH (jd) (Entered: 08/24/2017)
2017-08-15	3	PRISONER TRUST FUND ACCOUNT STATEMENT for period of six months by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH (jd) (Entered: 08/24/2017)
2017-10-10	4	ORDER directing an initial partial filing fee in the amount of $163.05 and Monthly Payments to be made from Prison Account of Hassan Ali Pejouhesh and granting MOTION for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (see order for full details). Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 10/5/2017. (jd) (Entered: 10/19/2017)
2017-10-10		Case Assigned to Judge Randolph D. Moss. Unassigned is no longer assigned to the case. (jd) (Entered: 10/19/2017)
2017-10-19	5	SUMMONS (3) Issued as to UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (jd) (Entered: 10/19/2017)
2017-11-21	6	RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 4 Order Directing Prisoner Payment,,, filed by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH. "LET IT BE FILED" by Judge Randolph D. Moss (td) (Entered: 11/27/2017)
2017-11-29		MINUTE ORDER: The Court entered an Order 4 directing Plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee in the amount of $163.05. In response, Plaintiff asserts that he is unable to pay that fee at present and has attached supporting documentation. Dkt. 6 . He requests that the Court waive the initial partial filing fee or, in the alternative, order him to pay 20% of his income in the preceding month toward that fee. Id. at 1. The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides, "In no event shall a prisoner be prohibited from bringing a civil action... for the reason that the prisoner has no assets and no means by which to pay the initial partial filing fee." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the requirement that Plaintiff pay an initial partial filing fee is hereby WAIVED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff shall pay the entire statutory filing fee of $350 in monthly installments in accordance with the following instructions: (1) the authorized officer where Plaintiff is detained shall deduct from Plaintiff's prison account 20% of the preceding month's income each time the amount in the account exceeds $10, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); (2) the funds shall be paid to the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia until the entire statutory filing fee of $350 is paid in full. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his address of record. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 11/29/2017. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 11/29/2017)
2017-12-08	7	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 12/06/2017. (jf) (Entered: 12/11/2017)
2017-12-22	8	First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defendant's Answer or Other Response to Plaintiff's Complaint by UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/22/2017)
2017-12-24		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Defendant's motion for extension 8 , the motion is hereby GRANTED. Defendant shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint on or before January 29, 2018. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 12/24/2017. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 12/24/2017)
2017-12-26		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint on or before 1/29/2018. (kt) (Entered: 12/26/2017)
2018-01-18	9	RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT (Objection) re Order on Motion for Extension of Time to, filed by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH. (td) (Entered: 01/22/2018)
2018-01-18	10	MOTION for Summary Judgment by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH; (See docket entry no. 9 to view.) (td) (Entered: 01/22/2018)
2018-01-29	11	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defendant's Answer or Other Response to Plaintiff's Complaint by UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
2018-01-30		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Defendant's motion for extension 11 , the motion is hereby GRANTED. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint on or before February 28, 2018. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 1/30/2018. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
2018-01-30		MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiff has filed a motion for summary judgment 9 , 10 based on "Defendant's failure to comply with the...Federal Rules of Civil Procedure" in seeking and obtaining an extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's complaint. Dkt. 9 at 1-2. Defendant has not run afoul of any Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, and, in any event, summary judgment would not be an appropriate "remedy," Dkt. 9 at 1, for any such violation. The motion, accordingly, is hereby DENIED. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 1/30/2018. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
2018-01-30		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint on or before 2/28/2018. (kt) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
2018-02-01	12	Summons Returned Unexecuted as to UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE. (td) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
2018-02-01	13	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 11/22/2017. Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 12/22/2017. (td) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
2018-02-28	14	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defendant's Answer or Other Response to Plaintiff's Complaint by UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/28/2018)
2018-03-01		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Defendant's motion for extension 14 , the motion is hereby GRANTED. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint on or before March 5, 2018. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 3/1/2018. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 03/01/2018)
2018-03-01		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint on or 3/5/2018. (kt) (Entered: 03/01/2018)
2018-03-05	15	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defendant's Answer or Other Response to Plaintiff's Complaint by UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/05/2018)
2018-03-06		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Defendant's motion for extension 15 , the motion is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint on or before March 20, 2018. No further extension will be granted absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 3/6/2018. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 03/06/2018)
2018-03-06		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint on or before 3/20/2018. (kt) (Entered: 03/06/2018)
2018-03-20	16	MOTION to Dismiss , MOTION for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Declaration Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D)(Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/20/2018)
2018-03-25	17	ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a brief in opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on or before May 11, 2018. If Plaintiff does not respond to Defendant's motion to dismiss within the time provided, the Court may treat the motion as conceded, dismiss Plaintiff's claims for failure to prosecute, or rule on the motion to dismiss based on Defendant's arguments alone and without considering any arguments that Plaintiff may later wish to raise. If Plaintiff does not file a response to Defendant's motion for summary judgment within the time provided, Plaintiff may not have the opportunity to be heard on the motion and the Court may resolve the case based exclusively on Defendant's submission. See document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 3/25/2018. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 03/25/2018)
2018-03-25		Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff shall file a brief in opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on or before 5/11/2018. (kt) (Entered: 03/25/2018)
2018-04-20	18	NOTICE of Non-service by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH; "LET IT BE FILED" signed 4/20/18 by Judge Randolph D. Moss (td) (Entered: 04/25/2018)
2018-04-20	19	MOTION to Strike 16 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment for Failure to Serve on Plaintiff as Required by Law, or in the alternative MOTION for Order for it to be served by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH; "Let IT BE FILED" signed 4/20/18 by Judge Randolph D. Moss (See docket entry no 18 to view.) (td) (Entered: 04/25/2018)
2018-05-07	20	NOTICE of (Re)Mailing of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE re 19 MOTION to Strike 16 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment MOTION for Order, 18 Notice (Other) (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/07/2018)
2018-05-17		MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiff's motion to strike 19 Defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment 16 is hereby DENIED. Defendant has indicated that it has remailed its motion to Pejouhesh at his address of record (Beaumont FCI). In light of Plaintiff's indication that he has not yet received a copy of Defendant's motion, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's deadline to respond to Defendant's motion is CONTINUED to July 6, 2018. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 5/17/2018. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 05/17/2018)
2018-05-17	21	Letter dated 5/8/2018 from Hassan Ali Pejouhesh, "Let it be filed" by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 5/17/2018. (ztth) Modified on 5/21/2018 to correct text. (ztth) (Entered: 05/21/2018)
2018-05-18		Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 7/6/2018. (kt) (Entered: 05/18/2018)
2019-03-26	22	MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Postal Service's motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment, Dkt. 16, is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. See document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 3/26/2019. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 03/26/2019)
2019-04-23		MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that each party shall submit a status report on or before May 24, 2019 proposing a schedule for further proceedings in this litigation. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 4/23/2019. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 04/23/2019)
2019-04-24		Set/Reset Deadlines: Individual Status Reports due by 5/24/2019. (kt) (Entered: 04/24/2019)
2019-05-28	23	STATUS REPORT by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-2)(ztd) (Entered: 06/03/2019)
2019-06-04		MINUTE ORDER: On April 23, 2019, the Court ordered the parties to each submit a status report on or before May 24, 2019 proposing a schedule for further proceedings in this litigation. That date has now passed, and although Plaintiff has submitted a status report, Dkt. 23, Defendant has not done so. It is ORDERED that Defendant shall file a status report on or before June 7, 2019 responding to Plaintiff's status report and proposing a schedule for further proceedings. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 6/4/2019. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 06/04/2019)
2019-06-04		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant's Status Report due by 6/7/2019, responding to Plaintiff's status report and proposing a schedule for further proceedings. (dot) (Entered: 06/04/2019)
2019-06-07	24	STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE. (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/07/2019)
2019-06-10		MINUTE ORDER: In light of the parties' individual status reports, it is hereby ORDERED that the following schedule shall govern further proceedings: Defendant shall file Motion for Summary Judgment on or before July 16, 2019, Plaintiff shall file an Opposition on or before August 27, 2019, and Defendant shall file a Reply on or before September 17, 2019. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 6/10/2019. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 06/10/2019)
2019-06-10		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant shall file Motion for Summary Judgment on or before 7/16/2019; Plaintiff shall file an Opposition on or before 8/27/2019; Defendant shall file a Reply on or before 9/17/2019. (kt) (Entered: 06/10/2019)
2019-07-15	25	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/15/2019)
2019-07-16		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the Defendant's motion to extend the time to file renewed motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 25, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall file its renewed motion for summary judgment on or before July 31, 2019. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 07/16/2019. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 07/16/2019)
2019-07-16		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant's renewed Summary Judgment motion due by 7/31/2019. (kt) (Entered: 07/16/2019)
2019-07-26	26	MOTION to Quash, MOTION to Strike 24 Status Report by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-G)(ztd) (Entered: 07/29/2019)
2019-07-30	27	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defenant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/30/2019)
2019-08-02		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the Defendant's motion to extend the time to file renewed motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 27, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall file its renewed motion for summary judgment on or before September 2, 2019. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 08/02/2019. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 08/02/2019)
2019-08-02		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant shall file its renewed motion for summary judgment on or before 9/2/2019. (kt) (Entered: 08/02/2019)
2019-08-06	28	ORDER: Plaintiff's motion to strike, Dkt. 26 , is hereby DENIED. Defendant is hereby ORDERED to mail copies of its motion to dismiss or in the alternative motion for summary judgment and of its June 7, 2019 status report to Plaintiff on or before August 13, 2019. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs deadline to respond to Defendants motion is CONTINUED to September 7, 2019. Finally, Plaintiffs request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. See document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 8/6/2019. (lcrdm2, ) Modified on 8/6/2019 to add deadlines in docket entry text(kt). (Main Document 28 replaced on 8/6/2019) (zkt). (Entered: 08/06/2019)
2019-08-06		Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's time to effectuate service upon party due by 8/13/2019; Plaintiff's Response due by 9/7/2019. (kt) (Entered: 08/06/2019)
2019-09-04	29	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/04/2019)
2019-09-06		MINUTE ORDER: Upon due consideration of the Defendant's motion to extend the time to file renewed motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 29, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall file its renewed motion for summary judgment on or before September 27, 2019. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 09/06/2019. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
2019-09-09		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant's Renewed Summary Judgment motion due by 9/27/2019. (kt) (Entered: 09/09/2019)
2019-09-27	30	Final MOTION for Extension of Time to FIle Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/27/2019)
2019-09-28		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Defendant's motion to extend the time to file renewed motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 30, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall file its renewed motion for summary judgment on or before October 1, 2019. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 09/28/2019. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 09/28/2019)
2019-09-30		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant's Summary Judgment motion due by 10/1/2019. (kt) (Entered: 09/30/2019)
2019-10-01	31	MOTION for Summary Judgment (Renewed by UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Exhibit)(Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/02/2019)
2019-10-03	32	FOX/NEAL ORDER: Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to respond to Defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 31, on or before October 22, 2019. See document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 10/03/2019. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 10/03/2019)
2019-10-03		Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's Response to 31 Motion for Summary Judgment due by 10/22/2019. (dot) (Entered: 10/03/2019)
2019-10-31	33	MOTION for Service by Certified Mail by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH (ztd) (Entered: 11/01/2019)
2019-11-05		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Service, Dkt. 33, and, in an abundance of caution, Defendant is hereby ORDERED to re-serve its renewed motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 31, and all accompanying materials, Dkt. 31-1; 31-2; 31-3, on Plaintiff at his address of record on or before November 19, 2019. In light of this Order, Plaintiff's deadline to respond to Defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment is hereby RESET. Plaintiff shall respond to Defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment on or before December 17, 2019. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 11/04/19. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 11/05/2019)
2019-12-13	34	MOTION to Strike 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Renewed by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH (ztd) (Entered: 12/18/2019)
2019-12-13	35	NOTICE by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH (ztd); (see docket entry no. 34 to view.) (Entered: 12/18/2019)
2019-12-23	36	MINUTE ORDER: On October 1, 2019, Defendant renewed its motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 31. On October 31, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion with the Court, asserting that Defendant had failed to serve its motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 33. The Court, out of an abundance of caution, ordered Defendant to re-serve its motion for summary judgment "on Plaintiff at his address of record." Minute Order (Nov. 5, 2019). Plaintiff has now filed a motion complaining that Defendant did not send its motion by certified mail. Dkt. 34. Defendant, however, is under no obligation to serve its filings by certified mail. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C). It appears, however, that the Bureau of Prisons returned the mailing Defendant sent, apparently because it was not sent in a "white envelope." Dkt. 34 at 7. In light of that complication, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendant re-serve its renewed motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 31, and all accompanying materials, Dkt. 31-1; 31-2; 31-3, on Plaintiff at his address of record on or before January 16, 2020. Plaintiff is cautioned that, absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court is unlikely to order Defendant to re-serve its motion a third time. In light of this Order, Plaintiff's deadline to respond to Defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment is hereby reset. Plaintiff shall respond to Defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment on or before February 14, 2020. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to strike, Dkt. 34, is DENIED. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 12/23/2019. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 12/23/2019)
2019-12-23		Set/Reset Deadlines: Time to effectuate service upon party due by 1/16/2020. (kt) (Entered: 12/23/2019)
2020-01-09	37	NOTICE of Temporary Change of Address by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH. "LEAVE TO FILE GRANTED" signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 1/9/2020. (eg) Modified on 1/14/2020 (eg). (Entered: 01/13/2020)
2020-01-15	38	Mail Returned as Undeliverable: Sent to HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH; Type of Document Returned: A copy of the Minute Order filed on 12/23/2019; Resent to temporary address verified on BOP website: FTC OKLAHOMA CITY, FEDERAL TRANSFER CENTER, P.O. BOX 898801, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73189. (kt) (Entered: 01/15/2020)
2020-01-29	39	NOTICE of Filing of Certificate of Service by UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE re 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Renewed (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/29/2020)
2020-02-06	40	Letter from Plaintiff "Let It Be Filed" signed 2/6/2020 by Judge Randolph D. Moss (ztd) (Entered: 02/12/2020)
2020-02-06	41	Letter from Plaintiff "Let It Be Filed" signed 2/6/2020 by Judge Randolph D. Moss (ztd) (Entered: 02/12/2020)
2020-02-18	42	NOTICE of Change of Address by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH (ztd) (Entered: 02/20/2020)
2020-02-18	43	MOTION for Extension of Time by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH (ztd); (See docket entry no. 42 .) (Entered: 02/20/2020)
2020-02-20		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Plaintiff's motion for extension, Dkt. 43, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant re-serve its renewed motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 31, and all accompanying materials, Dkt. 31-1; 31-2; 31-3, on Plaintiff at his address of record, see Dkt. 42 at 1, on or before March 13, 2020. In light of this Order, Plaintiff's deadline to respond to Defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment is hereby RESET. Plaintiff shall respond to Defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment on or before April 3, 2020. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 02/20/2020. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 02/20/2020)
2020-02-28	45	NOTICE of Change of Address by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH (ztd) ;("Let It Be Filed" signed 2/28/2020 by Judge Randolph D. Moss) (Entered: 03/09/2020)
2020-02-28	46	NOTICE by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH (ztd); (See docket entry no. 45 to view.) (Entered: 03/09/2020)
2020-03-02	44	NOTICE of Filing of Certificate of Service by UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE re Order on Motion for Extension of Time to,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,, (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/02/2020)
2020-03-23	47	MOTION to Strike 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Renewed by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH (ztd) (Entered: 03/25/2020)
2020-03-23	48	MOTION to Appoint Counsel by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH (ztd) (Entered: 03/25/2020)
2020-03-23	49	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Renewed by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH (ztd) (Entered: 03/25/2020)
2020-04-01	50	ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to strike, Dkt. 47, and motion for the appointment of counsel, Dkt. 48, are DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Defendant shall mail copies of its renewed motion for summary judgment and accompanying documents, Dkt. 31, to Plaintiff on or before April 15, 2020. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's deadline to respond to Defendant's motion is CONTINUED to May 15, 2020. Plaintiff is cautioned that, absent good cause, the Court will not order Defendant to re-serve its motion after this time, and that, if he does not file a response to Defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment within the time provided, he may not have the opportunity to be heard on the motion and the Court may resolve the case based exclusively on Defendants submission. See document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 04/01/2020. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 04/01/2020)
2020-04-14	51	NOTICE of Filing of Certificate of Service by UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE re 50 Order on Motion to Strike,,,, Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel,,,, Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,,, (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 04/14/2020)
2020-04-27	52	Letter from Plaintiff (ztd);("Let It Be Filed" signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss 4/29/2020) Modified on 4/30/2020 (ztd). (Entered: 04/29/2020)
2020-04-27	53	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Renewed by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH (Attachments: # 1 envelope)(ztd) (Entered: 04/30/2020)
2020-04-27	54	NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL as to 50 Order on Motion to Strike,,,, Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel,,,, Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,,, by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH. Fee Status: No Fee Paie. Parties have been notified. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(ztd) (Entered: 04/30/2020)
2020-04-29	52	Letter from Plaintiff (ztd);("Let It Be Filed" signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss 4/29/2020) (Entered: 04/29/2020)
2020-04-30	55	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 re 54 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal,. (ztd) (Entered: 04/30/2020)
2020-05-04		USCA Case Number 20-5118 for 54 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal, filed by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH. (zrdj) (Entered: 05/04/2020)
2020-06-01		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Plaintiff's motion to extend, Dkt. 53, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall respond to Defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment on or before August 15, 2020. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 06/01/2020. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 06/01/2020)
2020-06-15	56	Letter from Plaintiff ("LET THIS BE FILED" signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 6/15/2020) (ztd) (Entered: 06/15/2020)
2020-06-15	57	MANDATE of USCA as to 54 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal, filed by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH ; USCA Case Number 20-5118. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Order)(zrdj) (Entered: 06/16/2020)
2020-06-18	58	MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons explained herein, it is hereby ORDERED that (1) the Court will not appoint counsel to represent Plaintiff; (2) Plaintiff shall respond to the pending motion for summary judgment on or before August 15, 2020; and (3) the Clerk of the Court shall mail Plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet at his address of record. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 06/18/2020. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 06/18/2020)
2020-07-13	59	Letter from Plaintiff's Letter (ztd); ("Leave to File Granted" signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss) (Entered: 07/14/2020)
2020-07-16		MINUTE ORDER: On June 18, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to the long-pending motion for summary judgment on or before August 15, 2020. Dkt. 59 . Plaintiff has now filed a letter that (1) in part, appears to be a FOIA request addressed to the Bureau of Prisons, and (2) in part, is a request that this case be "held in abeyance" because Plaintiff's facility is on modified operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In light of that filing, the Court will (1) disregard the FOIA request, which is not properly part of the case, and (2) construe the remainder of the letter as a motion to stay the case. Given that the motion for summary judgment has now been pending for over nine months, that Plaintiff has been granted several motions to extend already, that Plaintiff failed to respond to the previous motion for summary judgment, and that there is only one remaining issue to litigate, the Court concludes that it is not in the interest of justice to delay the matter any further. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to stay the case is DENIED. Plaintiff shall respond to the pending motion for summary judgment on or before August 15, 2020. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 7/16/20. (lcrdm2) (Entered: 07/16/2020)
2020-08-03	60	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Renewed by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH (ztd) (Entered: 08/04/2020)
2020-08-05		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Plaintiff's motion for extension of time and renewed motion for appointment of counsel, Dkt. 60 , the motion is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff shall respond to the pending motion for summary judgment on or before August 28, 2020. No further extensions will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. Plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel is hereby DENIED for similar reasons to those given in the Court's prior denials of Plaintiff's requests for the appointment of counsel. Dkts. 28, 50 & 58. In particular, appointment of counsel is not in the interests of justice because only a single, narrow issue remains in this FOIA case, and Plaintiff is capable of addressing that issue without counsel. See Pinson v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , 273 F. Supp. 3d 1, 45 (D.D.C. 2017). Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 8/5/2020. (lcrdm2) (Entered: 08/05/2020)
2020-08-31	61	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Renewed by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH (ztd); ("Leave to file Granted" signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss) (Entered: 08/31/2020)
2020-09-01		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Plaintiff's motion for extension of time, Dkt. 61 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall respond to the pending motion for summary judgment on or before September 30, 2020. If the Court does not receive Plaintiff's opposition by that date, it will decide the motion without Plaintiff's filing. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 9/1/2020. (lcrdm2) (Entered: 09/01/2020)
2020-10-05	62	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(ztd) (Entered: 10/07/2020)
2020-10-13		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to respond to Defendant's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 62 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is DENIED, for the following reasons. The Court's prior Memorandum Opinion & Order, Dkt. 22 , granting in part and denying in part Defendant's prior motion for summary judgment, resolved most of the issues in this case. The only remaining issues are narrow and center on the sufficiency of Defendant's invocation of certain FOIA exemptions to justify redactions related to third-party privacy interests. Defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 31 , has now been pending for more than a year. Over that time, Plaintiff has asked for numerous extensions. Plaintiff's brief was originally due October 22, 2019. Dkt. 32 . After Plaintiff raised possible issues with service, Dkt. 33 , the Court ordered Defendants to re-serve the renewed motion for summary judgment and extended Plaintiff's deadline to December 17, 2019, see Minute Order (Nov. 5, 2019). Plaintiff then filed an additional motion "complaining that Defendant did not send its motion by certified mail." See Minute Order (Dec. 23, 2019); see also Dkt. 34 . While noting that Defendant "is under no obligation to serve its filings by certified mail," the Court again ordered Defendant to re-serve the motion, in part based on Plaintiff's assertion that the Bureau of Prisons had rejected Defendant's mailing because it was not sent in a white envelope. Minute Order (Dec. 23, 2019). The Court therefore extended Plaintiff's deadline (for a second time) to February 14, 2020. On February 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time and again complained that he had not received Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 43 . The Court again ordered Defendants to re-serve Plaintiff and extended Plaintiff's deadline (for a third time) until April 3, 2020. On March 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed another motion for extension of time. Dkt. 49 . The Court granted the motion and extended Plaintiff's deadline (for a fourth time) to May 15, 2020. Dkt. 50. In so doing, the Court warned Plaintiff that if he did "not file a response to Defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment within the time provided, he may not have the opportunity to be heard on the motion and the Court may resolve the case based exclusively on Defendant's submission." Id. at 2. In the same order, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel. Id. On April 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed another motion to extend time, Dkt. 53 , which the Court granted, extending the deadline (for a fifth time) to August 15, 2020, Minute Order (June 1, 2020). In the meantime, Plaintiff took an interlocutory appeal, Dkt. 54 , which he later voluntarily dismissed, Dkt. 57 . On July 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay the case, because the pandemic made it more difficult for him to access legal materials within the prison where he is incarcerated, Dkt. 59 , which the Court denied, Minute Order (July 16, 2020). On August 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed another motion for extension of time, Dkt. 60 , which the Court granted, extending his deadline (for a sixth time) to August 28, 2020, see Minute Order (Aug. 5, 2020). In the same order, the Court denied Plaintiff's renewed motion for appointment of counsel. Id. On August 31, 2020, Plaintiff filed yet another motion for extension of time, Dkt. 61 , and the Court extended his deadline (for a seventh time) to September 30, 2020, see Minute Order (Sept. 1, 2020). In that same order, the Court admonished Plaintiff that "[i]f the Court does not receive Plaintiff's opposition by that date, it will decide the motion without Plaintiff's filing." Id. Now before the Court is Plaintiff's further motion for extension of time to file (or, in the alternative, to stay the case or to appoint counsel). Dkt. 62 . Although the Court is sensitive to the hardships caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, there is simply no reason that Plaintiff could not have responded to Defendant's motion at some point within the past year. The narrow issue remaining in the case is not complicated. Plaintiff was able to file an interlocutory appeal, and his motions for extension of time have been lengthy and have cited legal authority; he could have filed a response to the motion for summary judgment with similar effort. Plaintiff's motion for an additional extension of time is therefore denied, and the Court will decide the motion for summary judgment without the benefit of Plaintiff's briefing on the merits unless Plaintiff files a response without further delay. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 10/13/2020. (lcrdm2) (Entered: 10/13/2020)
2020-11-02		MINUTE ORDER: In a prior opinion, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment. Dkt. 22 . In particular, the Court concluded: "(1) that Plaintiff lacks standing to challenge [Defendant]'s records retention policy; (2) that [Defendant] conducted an adequate search for responsive records; and (3) that [Defendant] has justified some, but not all, of its withholdings." Id. at 2. As to the withholdings for which the Court required additional justification, Defendant filed a renewed motion for summary judgment on October 1, 2019. Dkt. 31 . Despite receiving many chances to file over more than a year, Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendant's motion for summary judgment. See Minute Order (Oct. 13, 2020). As such, the Court will resolve the motion without input from Plaintiff and must treat Defendant's uncontested evidence as true. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2); see also Winston & Strawn, LLP v. McLean , 843 F.3d 503, 507 (D.C. Cir. 2010); Local Civ. R. 7(h)(1). That, however, is not enough to push this case over the finish line because Defendant has not presented any new evidence. Instead, Defendant rests on a declaration and Vaughn index that simply restate, with minor, inconsequential differences, the explanations that the Court already held were insufficient. As such, the Court will deny Defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Court's prior opinion left open three narrow issues, all of which related to 17 pages that Defendant withheld in their entirety. First, the record included insufficient explanation for why Defendant entirely withheld "third party statements" under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which applies to "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes" disclosure of which "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Dkt. 22 at 13-14; 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C). Second, Defendant "fail[ed] to explain how the identity of 'third party individuals' implicates Exemption 7(E)," which applies to law enforcement records the production of which "would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law." Dkt. 22 at 14-15; 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E). And third, Defendant "failed to carry its burden of showing that it released all reasonably segregable material." Dkt. 22 at 16. Defendant's renewed motion fails to illuminate any of those three issues. With respect to the "third party statements" withheld under Exemption 7(C), the declaration accompanying Defendant's original motion for summary judgment explained that those statements were withheld because the information "would reveal the identities of individuals, which could result in unwanted contacts, threats, and harassment." Dkt. [16-3] at 6 (Mungin Decl. Para. 14). In previously denying Defendant's motion for summary judgment in relevant part, the Court wrote: "To be sure, to the extent those statements disclose the names or other identifying information about witnesses, that information likely falls within the scope of the exemption, and it is also possible that everything contained in those statements could be used to identify a witness. It is also possible, however, that substantial portions of those statements do not raise any plausible privacy concern. The problem is that nothing in the Mungin declaration or otherwise in the record permits the Court to determine whether [Defendant] had sufficient basis to withhold substantial portions of the third-party statements. The Court, accordingly, cannot grant summary judgment in favor of [Defendant] with respect to those records without further information." Dkt. 22 at 13-14. The declaration submitted with Defendant's renewed motion attests that these third-party statements were withheld because "[r]evealing this information would reveal the identities of individuals, which could result in unwanted contacts, threats, stigmatization and harassment for being connected with a criminal investigation." Dkt. [31-3] at 5 (Warner Decl. Para. 11). The addition of the word "stigmatization" and the phrase "for being connected with a criminal investigation" does nothing to clarify why these third-party privacy interests could not be protected by redacting identifying information from the relevant statements, while disclosing at least portions of those statements. It is, of course, possible that disclosure of any meaningful portion of the statement would reveal the identity of the witness. But it is Defendant's burden to explain why that is the case. If Defendant cannot do so on the public record, it can seek leave to file an explanation ex parte and under seal. As the record currently stands, however, Defendant has merely asserted a conclusion. As for the identities of third-party individuals withheld under Exemption 7(E), the Court previously held that Defendant had failed "to explain how the identity of 'third party individuals' implicates Exemption 7(E), which addresses law enforcement techniques, procedures, and guidelines," and that the Mungin declaration "refer[red] to 'law enforcement techniques'... in the disjunctive and otherwise fail[ed] to show that each of the records at issue would, if disclosed, reveal a law enforcement technique, procedure, or guideline." Dkt. 22 at 14. Moreover, "even putting those problems aside," the Court further held that "the declaration fail[ed] to offer any basis to conclude that 'disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.'" Id. (citing 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E)). Defendant's new declaration says only that "[i]n the past, the courts have upheld protecting means by which law enforcement 'plans and executes undercover operations' because disclosure could allow wrongdoers to plan criminal activities to evade detection." Dkt. [31-3] at 5 (Warner Decl. Para. 12). That is certainly true but does nothing to explain the connection, if any, between the identities of third parties and the nature of any undercover investigations. Again, if Defendant can meet its burden only by seeking leave to file a declaration ex parte and under seal, it should do so. Finally, with respect to segregability, the Warner declaration is almost word-for-word identical to the Mungin declaration, compare Dkt. [31-3] at 5-6 (Warner Decl. Paras. 13-14) with Dkt. [16-3] at 8 (Mungin Decl. Paras. 18-19), and Defendant's memorandum in support of its renewed motion for summary judgment, which in total includes less than four pages of analysis, does not even mention segregability, see Dkt. [31-2]. The Court is thus left without answers to the exact same questions that it held were unanswered in its prior opinion. Defendant's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 31 , accordingly, is hereby DENIED. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 11/2/2020. (lcrdm2) (Entered: 11/02/2020)
2021-01-29	63	MOTION to Enforce, MOTION to Compel by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH. (ztd); ("Leave to file Granted" by Judge Randolph D. Moss) (Entered: 01/29/2021)
2021-01-29	64	LEAVE TO FILE DENIED- Plaintiff's Letter and Exhibit This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (ztd); ("Leave to file DENIED" by Judge Randolph D. Moss) (Entered: 01/29/2021)
2021-01-29		MINUTE ORDER: In light of the Court's order denying Defendant's motion for summary judgment, see Minute Order (Nov. 2, 2020), and Plaintiff's motion to enforce and compel, Dkt. 63 , it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall each file a status report on or before February 22, 2021, addressing (1) whether the Court should construe Plaintiff's motion as a motion for summary judgment and (2) next steps in the litigation. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 1/29/2021. (lcrdm2) (Entered: 01/29/2021)
2021-02-16	65	NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL as to Order,,, Set Deadlines,, by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH. Fee Status: No Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (ztd) (Entered: 02/25/2021)
2021-02-16	70	Amended NOTICE OF APPEAL re appeal 65 by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH. (ztd) (Entered: 03/10/2021)
2021-02-25	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 re 65 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal. (ztd) (Entered: 02/25/2021)
2021-02-25	67	STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE. (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/25/2021)
2021-02-26		MINUTE ORDER: In light of Plaintiff's notice of interlocutory appeal, Dkt. 65 , the Court clarifies for Plaintiff that the Court has not denied his motion to enforce, Dkt. 63 . Instead, the Court only denied leave to file certain attachments that did not appear to relate to the substance of the motion. See Dkt. 64 . Although a properly noticed appeal would divest this Court of jurisdiction, because Plaintiff purports to appeal an order that the Court did not enter, the Court retains jurisdiction. Upon consideration of Defendant's status report, Dkt. 67 , it is hereby ORDERED that the Court will construe Plaintiff's motion to enforce, Dkt. 63 , as a motion for summary judgment, and it is further ORDERED that the following schedule shall govern further proceedings in this case: Defendant shall file its renewed motion for summary judgment on or before March 26, 2021; Plaintiff shall file his opposition on or before May 3, 2021, and may also supplement his motion for summary judgment at that time; the government shall file its combined reply and response to Plaintiff's supplemented motion on or before May 24, 2021; and Plaintiff shall file his final reply on or before June 24, 2021. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 2/26/2021. (lcrdm2) (Entered: 02/26/2021)
2021-03-01		USCA Case Number 21-5051 for 65 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH. (ztd) (Entered: 03/08/2021)
2021-03-01	69	STATUS REPORT by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(ztd) (Entered: 03/10/2021)
2021-03-02	68	LEAVE TO FILE DENIED- Plaintiff's Letter re: Status This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. (Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss "Leave to File Denied".) (ztd) (Entered: 03/09/2021)
2021-03-03	71	NOTICE of Change of Address by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH (ztd) (Entered: 03/10/2021)
2021-03-03	72	MOTION to Withdraw 65 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal, 70 Amended Notice of Appeal by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH. (ztd) (Entered: 03/10/2021)
2021-03-03	73	MOTION to Enforce, MOTION to Compel by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH. (ztd) (Entered: 03/10/2021)
2021-03-10	74	Supplemental Record on Appeal transmitted to US Court of Appeals re 72 MOTION to Withdraw 65 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal, 70 Amended Notice of Appeal ;USCA Case Number 21-5051. (ztd) (Entered: 03/10/2021)
2021-03-11	75	NOTICE of Change of Address by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH (ztd) (Entered: 03/15/2021)
2021-03-17	77	MANDATE of USCA as to 66 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to USCA, 74 Supplemental ROA Sent to USCA, USCA Case Number, 65 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH, 70 Amended Notice of Appeal filed by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH ; USCA Case Number 21-5051. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Order)(ztd) (Entered: 03/18/2021)
2021-03-18	76	Mail Returned as Undeliverable; Sent to: HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH; Type of Document Returned: A copy of the Minute Order filed on 02/26/2021; Re-sent to new address of record. (kt) (Entered: 03/18/2021)
2021-03-26	78	MOTION for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Declaration)(Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/26/2021)
2021-04-01	79	FOX/NEAL ORDER: Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to respond to Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 78 , on or before May 3, 2021. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 4/1/2021. (lcrdm2) (Entered: 04/01/2021)
2021-04-06	80	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 78 MOTION for Summary Judgment by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH. (ztd) (Entered: 04/08/2021)
2021-04-13		MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiff has filed a motion for extension of time, Dkt. 80 , in which he asks for an extension until April 22, 2021 to respond to Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 78 . But Plaintiff's current deadline for responding is May 3, 2021. See Dkt. 79 . Because Plaintiff's motion for extension of time asks for less time than the Court has already given him, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is DENIED as MOOT. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 4/13/2021. (lcrdm2) (Entered: 04/13/2021)
2021-04-14	81	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 78 MOTION for Summary Judgment by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH. (ztd) (Entered: 04/19/2021)
2021-04-19		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Plaintiff's motion for extension of time, Dkt. 81 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff shall respond to Defendant's motion for summary judgment on or before June 4, 2021. In the prior round of summary judgment briefing, Plaintiff requested multiple extensions of time, spanning more than a year, but ultimately never responded to Defendant's motion, forcing the Court to resolve the motion without Plaintiff's input. To avoid another lengthy delay in the case, the Court admonishes Plaintiff that further extensions will not be granted absent a showing of good cause. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 4/19/2021. (lcrdm2) (Entered: 04/19/2021)
2021-05-17	82	MOTION to Appoint Counsel by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH. (ztd) (Entered: 05/31/2021)
2021-06-03		MINUTE ORDER: This fairly straightforward FOIA case has now been pending for nearly four years, largely because of Plaintiff's persistent failures to timely file his briefs. In a prior round of summary judgment briefing, Plaintiff requested multiple extensions of time, stretching more than a year, but he ultimately failed to respond to Defendant's motion for summary judgment, forcing the Court to resolve the motion (in Plaintiff's favor) without Plaintiff's input. See Minute Order (Oct. 13. 2020); Minute Order (Nov. 2, 2020). On January 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce and to compel, Dkt. 63 , which the Court construed as a motion for summary judgment, see Minute Order (Feb. 26, 2021). Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on March 26, 2021. Dkt. 78 . Plaintiff's response to that motion was originally due on May 3, 2021. See Minute Order (Feb. 26, 2021). On April 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time, Dkt. 80 , asking the Court to extend his deadline to respond to Defendant's motion for summary judgment to April 22, 2021. Because Plaintiff's deadline was already later than April 22, 2021, the Court denied his motion for extension of time as moot. Minute Order (Apr. 13, 2021). On April 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed another motion for extension of time, asking the Court to extend the deadline for his response to Defendant's motion for summary judgment until July 3, 2021. Dkt. 81 . The Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion. The Court extended Plaintiff's deadline to June 4, 2021, but also cautioned Plaintiff that, "[t]o avoid another lengthy delay in the case,... further extensions will not be granted absent a showing of good cause." Minute Order (Apr. 19, 2021). Rather than filing his opposition brief as directed, Plaintiff has now filed a motion to appoint counsel, Dkt. 82 , which is at least his fifth such request in this case. Upon consideration of Plaintiff's latest motion to appoint counsel, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is DENIED, for substantially the same reasons explained in the Court's prior denials. See Dkt. 28 ; Dkt. 50 ; Dkt. 58 ; Minute Order (Aug. 5, 2020). Specifically, appointment of counsel at this stage of the litigation is not in the interest of justice because only three narrow issues remain in this case, and Plaintiff is capable of addressing those matters without counsel. See Pinson v. U.S. Dep't of Just. , 273 F. Supp. 3d 1, 45 (D.D.C. 2017). Indeed, Plaintiff has shown himself more than capable of presenting lengthy legal arguments in his many motions for extensions of time and appointment of counsel. With similar effort, he could respond to Defendant's motion. It is further ORDERED that the following schedule shall govern further proceedings in this case: Defendant shall file its opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on or before June 25, 2021, and Plaintiff shall file his final reply brief, in which he may address both of the pending cross-motions for summary judgment, on or before July 23, 2021. Plaintiff is cautioned that this final deadline will not be extended absent extraordinary circumstances. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 6/3/2021. (lcrdm2) (Entered: 06/03/2021)
2021-06-17	83	MOTION for Extension of Time by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH. (ztd) (Entered: 06/23/2021)
2021-06-28	86	NOTICE OF APPEAL as to Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings,,,,,,,,,,,,, by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH. Filing fee $ 505. Fee Status: No Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (ztd) (Entered: 07/14/2021)
2021-06-30		MINUTE ORDER: On June 3, 2021, the Court ordered Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 73 , on or before June 25, 2021, and ordered Plaintiff to file a final reply brief, in which he could address both of the pending cross-motions for summary judgment, on or before July 23, 2021. Plaintiff has now filed a motion for extension of time, which he dated May 31, 2021, seeking an extension of his prior deadline. Because the Court has already extended Plaintiff's deadline, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for extension of time, Dkt. 83 , is DENIED as MOOT. Defendant, for its part, failed to either file its opposition to Plaintiff's motion or seek an extension. It is therefore further ORDERED that Defendant shall file its opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 73 , on or before July 7, 2021. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 6/30/2021. (lcrdm2) (Entered: 07/01/2021)
2021-06-30	84	NOTICE OF APPEAL as to Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings,,,,,,,,,,,,, by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH. Fee Status: No Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (ztd) (Entered: 07/05/2021)
2021-06-30	85	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 84 Notice of Appeal. (ztd) (Entered: 07/05/2021)
2021-07-05		MINUTE ORDER: In light of Plaintiff's notice of appeal, Dkt. 84 , it is hereby ORDERED that the case is STAYED pending the outcome of the appeal. It is further ORDERED that the pending cross-motions for summary judgment are held in abeyance, and the parties' deadlines for filing their final briefs are VACATED. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 7/5/2021. (lcrdm2) (Entered: 07/05/2021)
2021-07-09		USCA Case Number 21-5159 for 84 Notice of Appeal filed by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH. (ztd) (Entered: 07/14/2021)
2021-07-14	87	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 86 Notice of Appeal. (ztd) (Entered: 07/14/2021)
2021-07-26	88	NOTICE of Change of Address by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH (ztd) (Entered: 07/28/2021)
2021-08-11	89	ORDER of USCA (certified copy) as to 84 Notice of Appeal filed by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH ; USCA Case Number 21-5159. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiff's Motion to Appeal IFP)(ztd) (Entered: 08/11/2021)
2021-08-11	90	MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH. (ztd) (Entered: 08/13/2021)
2021-08-14		MINUTE ORDER: Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, Dkt. 90 , which the D.C. Circuit referred to this Court, Dkt. 89 . "A prisoner seeking to... appeal a judgment in a civil action" must "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... notice of appeal, obtained from the appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner is or was confined." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Because Plaintiff failed to file such a statement with his motion, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is held in abeyance and that Plaintiff shall submit his trust fund account statement on or before September 6, 2021. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 8/14/2021. (lcrdm2) (Entered: 08/14/2021)
2021-09-10		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, Dkt. 90 , it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. The Clerk shall transmit this order promptly to the Court of Appeals. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 09/10/2021. (lcrdm2) (Entered: 09/10/2021)
2021-09-14	91	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 21-5159. (znmw) (Entered: 09/14/2021)
2021-09-28	92	LEAVE TO FILE DENIED- Plaintiff's Letter This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing.. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 9/28/2021. (ztd) (Entered: 09/28/2021)
2021-10-18	93	ORDER of USCA (certified copy) as to 84 Notice of Appeal filed by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH ; USCA Case Number 21-5159. (znmw) (Entered: 10/18/2021)
2021-10-20		MINUTE ORDER: In light of the Court of Appeals' Order dismissing Plaintiff's appeal for lack of jurisdiction, see Pejouhesh v. USPS , No. 21-5159 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 18, 2021), it is hereby ORDERED that the stay is LIFTED. It is further ORDERED that (1) the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment shall no longer be held in abeyance; (2) Plaintiff shall file a response to Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment 78 on or before December 1, 2021; and (3) Defendant shall file a response to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment 73 on or before December 15, 2021. The Court refers Plaintiff to its Fox/Neal order, Dkt. 79 , which states: If Plaintiff does not file a response to Defendant's motion for summary judgment within the time provided, Plaintiff may not have the opportunity to be heard on the motion and the Court may resolve the case based exclusively on Defendant's submission. Given the age of this case, the numerous extensions of time granted to date, and the fact that Plaintiff's original deadline for responding to Defendant's motion was May 3, 2021, the Court will not grant any further extensions absent extraordinary circumstances. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 10/20/2021. (lcrdm2) (Entered: 10/20/2021)
2021-10-20		Case UNSTAYED. (kt) (Entered: 10/20/2021)
2021-10-24		MINUTE ORDER: In light of Plaintiff's motion to withdraw 72 and the Court of Appeals order granting Plaintiff's motion and dismissing his appeal 77 , it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's pending motion to withdraw is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 10/24/2021. (lcrdm2) (Entered: 10/24/2021)
2021-11-05	94	MOTION for Extension of Time by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH. (znmw) (Entered: 11/09/2021)
2021-11-10		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Plaintiff's motion for extension of time, Dkt. 94 , the Court hereby ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to send Plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet. The Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time is DENIED. Through repeated requests for extensions of time, Plaintiff has caused multiple lengthy delays in this case. In response to this pattern of dilatory behavior, the Court made clear in its previous order that it "will not grant [Plaintiff] any further extensions absent extraordinary circumstances." Minute Order (Oct. 20, 2021). Plaintiff's most recent motion fails to explain why he requires the docket sheet to respond to Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. The Court, accordingly, concludes that Plaintiff has failed to show good cause. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 11/10/2021. (lcrdm2) (Entered: 11/10/2021)
2021-11-22	95	RESPONSE re 78 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH. (znmw) (Entered: 11/23/2021)
2021-11-22	96	ENTERED IN ERROR.....Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH. (See Docket Entry 95 to view document). (znmw) Modified to enter in error per chambers on 4/22/2022 (znmw). (Entered: 11/23/2021)
2021-12-02	97	NOTICE of Opposition To Any Future Defendant's Motion for Extension by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH. "LET IT BE FILED" Signed by Randolph D. Moss, U.S.D.J. on 12/02/2021 (zjf) (Entered: 12/03/2021)
2021-12-03		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Plaintiff's notice of opposition, Dkt. 97 , it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's request to deny any future motion for extension of time is DENIED as premature. There are no pending motions for extensions of time in this case. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 12/3/2021. (lcrdm2) (Entered: 12/03/2021)
2021-12-06		MINUTE ORDER: It has come to the Court's attention that there are two nearly identical motions pending in this case. See Dkt. 63 and Dkt. 73 . To avoid confusion, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 73 , is DENIED as duplicative of his first-filed motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 63 , which remains pending. It is further ORDERED that this order shall not disturb Defendant's deadline of December 15, 2021, for responding to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment 63 . Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 12/6/2021. (lcrdm2) (Entered: 12/06/2021)
2021-12-15	98	MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE. (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/15/2021)
2021-12-29		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Defendant's motion for extension of time, Dkt. 98 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Defendant's reply shall be due on or before January 7, 2022. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 12/29/2021. (lcrdm2) (Entered: 12/29/2021)
2022-01-07	99	REPLY to opposition to motion re 78 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE. (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/07/2022)
2022-01-11		MINUTE ORDER: The Court hereby ORDERS Defendant to provide the Court with an unredacted version of the 17-page Postal Inspection Service Search Warrant/Arrest Operation Plan (or "Operational Plan"), see Dkt. [78-3] at 3 (Warner Decl. Para. 9), for ex parte , in camera review on or before January 14, 2022. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 1/11/2022. (lcrdm2) (Entered: 01/11/2022)
2022-01-14	100	NOTICE of Submission Ex Parte In Camera by UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE re Set Deadlines, (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/14/2022)
2022-01-20	101	MOTION to Strike 98 MOTION for Extension of Time by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH. (znmw) (Entered: 01/20/2022)
2022-01-22		MINUTE ORDER: On December 15, 2021, the government filed a motion for extension of time to file its reply in support of its renewed motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 98 . Counsel for the government represented that a copy of the motion was served upon Plaintiff at an address in Beaumont, Texas. Dkt. 98 at 5. Plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion and, on December 29, 2021, the Court granted the motion for extension of time. See Minute Order (Dec. 29, 2021). The government then filed its reply in support of summary judgment on January 7, 2022. Dkt. 99 . Plaintiff has now moved to strike the government's motion for extension of time, arguing that he never received a copy of it and that he first became aware of the motion upon receiving a copy of the Court's December 29 Minute Order. Dkt. 101 . The Court concludes that counsel for the government sent a copy of the motion for extension of time to Plaintiff at the wrong addressas the docket states, Plaintiff is detained in Pecos, Texas, and not Beaumont, Texas. The Court admonishes counsel for the government to ensure that he is using the correct address when he serves pleadings and motions on Plaintiff in this case. The Court will, however, DENY Plaintiff's motion to strike and decline to vacate the Court's prior order on the ground that the issue is now moot, given that the government filed its reply on January 7. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 1/22/2022. (lcrdm2) (Entered: 01/22/2022)
2022-02-03	102	SURREPLY to re 78 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH. (znmw) (Entered: 02/04/2022)
2022-02-07	103	MANDATE of USCA as to 86 Notice of Appeal filed by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH ; USCA Case Number 21-5159. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Order 10/18/2021)(znmw) (Entered: 02/07/2022)
2022-02-07	104	NOTICE by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH re Minute Order dated 12/6/2021, 97 Notice (Other) (znmw) (Entered: 02/08/2022)
2022-03-14	105	MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Postal Service's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 78 , is hereby DENIED with respect to Exemption 7(C), and GRANTED in all other respects. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 63 , is hereby DENIED. The Postal Service is hereby ORDERED to file a status report on or before March 28, 2022, addressing (1) whether the eight-page Affidavit in Support of an Arrest Warrant described in the Vaughn index is the same document as the first entry on Plaintiff's criminal docket, see Complaint at 29, United States v. Pejouhesh , No. 4:10-cr-687 (S.D. Tex. filed Sept. 24, 2010), ECF No. 1; and (2) if so, whether the document must now be released pursuant to the public domain doctrine. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 3/14/2022. (lcrdm2) (Entered: 03/14/2022)
2022-03-29	106	NOTICE of Release of Affidavit by UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/29/2022)
2022-04-22		MINUTE ORDER: In light of the Postal Service's notice that the Affidavit in Support of an Arrest Warrant has been released to Plaintiff, Dkt. 106 at 1, it is hereby ORDERED that the outstanding portion of the government's motion for summary judgment 78 is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 4/22/2022. (lcrdm2) (Entered: 04/22/2022)
2022-04-22	107	ORDER: For the reasons stated in the Court's Memorandum Opinion, Dkt. 105 , and the Court's Minute Order, see Minute Order (Apr. 22, 2022), it is hereby ORDERED that the Postal Service's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 78 , is GRANTED in part and DENIED as moot in part and that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 63 , is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that judgment is hereby ENTERED in favor of the Postal Service, as described in the Court's Memorandum Opinion, Dkt. 105 , and the Court's Minute Order, see Minute Order (Apr. 22, 2022). This Order constitutes a final judgment of the Court within the meaning of Rule 58(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Deputy Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the case. See document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 4/22/2022. (lcrdm2) (Entered: 04/22/2022)
2022-04-29	108	NOTICE of Change of Address by HASSAN ALI PEJOUHESH (znmw) (Entered: 05/02/2022)
Hide Docket Events