Case Detail
| Case Title | Yassein v. El Paso Intelligence Center | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | Southern District of California | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | San Diego | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 3:2021cv01530 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2021-08-30 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2021-11-02 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | Younes Yassein | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Younes Yassein submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Justice for records concerning an incident in which is car was searched by the El Paso Intelligence Center. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request but after hearing nothing further from the agency, Yassein filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | El Paso Intelligence Center Foia/ Pa Mail Referral Unit Department of Justice | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Appeal | Ninth Circuit 22-55187 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Opinion/Order [11] Opinion/Order [20] FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in California has ruled that Younes Yassein failed to state a claim that would allow the Department of Justice to search for records in response to his request. Yassein claimed that he had been stopped by Law Enforcement Officer Mike Miller of Colorado, who had run Yasein's name through the El Paso Intelligence Center and found out that he had an open DEA charge pending against him. Yassein submitted a FOIA request to the El Paso Intelligence Center for records showing that such a charge existed. The agency argued that the request did not reasonably describe searchable records. The agency referred the request to DEA. DEA contacted Yassein for clarification but did not hear back from him. Judge Gonzalo Curiel explained that "the Ninth Circuit recently held that a requestor must exhaust his administrative remedies under FOIA, including administrative appeal, so long as an agency properly responds before suit is filed â€" even if that response is after the 20 business days allotted by the statute. Here, the agency's August 3 letter does two things: makes a good faith effort to assist Plaintiff in satisfying the requirement of reasonable description and provides Plaintiff with the information necessary to complete an administrative appeal." Curiel added that "the letter's attempt to clarify the request tips the scales in favor of the Defendants. Defendants have provided evidence that they responded prior to the initiation of Plaintiff's suit on August 30, 2021. And despite Plaintiff's assertion that 'Defendants did not respond until they were sued,' Plaintiff has not provided any evidence to support this claim or rebut Defendant's showing. A stated assertion in opposition briefing alone is not evidence. Nor has Plaintiff provided any evidence that he filed an administrative appeal or otherwise administratively exhausted according to the procedure laid out by Defendants in the August 3 letter. Without such an appeal, Plaintiff's lawsuit is premature and summary judgment for the Defendants is proper." Curiel indicated that "even assuming arguendo that Plaintiff had received Defendants' letter requesting clarification after the initiation of Plaintiff's suit, thus constructively satisfying administrative exhaustion, the question remains whether Plaintiff's FOIA request was too deficient to properly trigger the agency's duty to respond. Upon review of Plaintiff's FOIA request, the Court concludes that it is indeed too vague so that it does not 'reasonably describe' records being sought, therefore failing to meet the requirements of a proper FOIA request." Curiel noted that "Plaintiff never actually asks for any kind of record. Instead, the FOIA request reads like an attempt to charge 'Mike Miller' with a crime. The request does not include the date of the incident that the requested information describes, nor does it provide even an approximate timeframe, year, or location that would allow the agency to locate the record with a reasonable amount of effort. The only identifier in the request is that it involves a 'law enforcement officer' named 'Mike Miller' in Colorado. This lack of information forces Defendant to engage in 'quite a bit of guesswork' in order to identify what records are sought."
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Failure to Exhaust | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
