UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FRANCIS DAMIEN BLOCK, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-03073 (CJN) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 23, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice, ECF No. 31. Background Francis Damien Block submitted a FOIA and Privacy Act request to the Department of Justice seeking “all records concerning [Francis Damien Block] held in the office of the U.S. Attorney in the Western District of Michigan.” Declaration of Kara Cain ¶ 5, Att. B (FOIA request), ECF No. 23-2. The Executive Office of United States Attorney’s (EOUSA) directed that U.S. Attorney’s Office to search for responsive records. Id. ¶ 7. EOUSA reviewed the records that were located and on November 12, 2019 sent to Block a final response letter with corresponding records. EOUSA noted in the letter that, pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 3, 5, 6, and 7(C), it had included withheld portions of 203 pages and the entirety of another 471 pages of records. Id. ¶¶ 7, 9. Nearly three hundred of those pages had originated with the Drug Enforcement Agency, and EOUSA accordingly referred them to the DEA. Declaration of Angela Hertel ¶¶ 9– 10. On June 30, 2019, the DEA released 1 page in full, partially released 149 pages, withheld 130 1 pages in full, and noted 9 pages were duplicates. Id. ¶ 11. All of these records (whether released, redacted or withheld) are, according to the DEA, investigative records maintained in the DEA’s Investigative Reporting and Filing System. Id. ¶¶ 12–14. Thereafter, Block filed this suit pro se, seeking release of all records requested in his FOIA request as well as a declaratory judgment that defendants willfully violated both FOIA and the Privacy Act. Compl., ECF No. 1. The government then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on all claims. Defs. Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 23. The Court subsequently issued what is known as a Fox-Neal Order, which advised Block that failing to respond to the arguments in the government’s motion could result in the Court granting the motion and dismissing the case. See Order at 6–8, ECF No. 29 (citing Fox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (per curiam); Neal v. Kelly, 936 F.2d 453 (D.C. Cir. 1992)). Block filed an opposition, exclusively (or at least primarily) arguing that Defendants failed to provide a Vaughn Index for the records referred to the DEA. Pl. Opp. at 3–4. Defendants filed a reply and, following further order from the Court, later lodged a Vaughn index for those records. ECF Nos. 33, 34-1. The Court then gave Block an opportunity to supplement his response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, see Minute Order of January 14, 2022, but he did not do so. Legal Standards Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings and evidence “show[] that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals