FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NOV 13 2019 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia JULIO C. LOPEZ-PENA, ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-02884 (UNA) DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter, brought pro se, is before the Court on review of the complaint and plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis application and dismiss the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (requiring immediate dismissal of a prisoner’s action upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted). Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires complaints to contain “(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the Court’s jurisdiction [and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). Plaintiff, a prisoner at Allenwood Federal Correctional Institution, located in White Deer, Pennsylvania, sues the President of the United States, the U.S. Attorney General, the Assistant Director of the Office of U.S. Attorneys, the Deputy Director of the U.S. Marshal Service, the Associate General Counsel of the U.S. Marshal Service, and two John Does. The action proceeds as one under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), see 5 U.S.C. § 552. Plaintiff alleges that “(hjis efforts to utilize the Freedom of Information Act appear to have been either refused, neglected, hidden, or ignored by the government. [He] requested the documents twice (from the clerk of courts then FOIA, then filed a ‘Motion for Disclosure’ in his criminal case (Criminal No. 09-CR-00558) to no avail, or even response.” He requests disclosure of certain documents and directs the Court “to make a finding of fact and law” regarding his underlying arrest, indictment, and conviction.! FOIA jurisdiction extends to claims arising from an agency's improper withholding of records requested in accordance with agency rules. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(3)(A), (4)(B)(); McGehee v. CIA, 697 F.2d 1095, 1105 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (quoting Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 150 (1980)). Plaintiff does not allege that an agency has improperly withheld records responsive to a properly submitted FOIA request. See Marcusse v. U.S. Dep't of Justice Office of Info. Policy, 959 F. Supp. 2d 130, 140 (D.D.C. 2013) (An “agency’s disclosure obligations are triggered by its receipt of a request that ‘reasonably describes [the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals