Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp.

20 Citing cases

  1. Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp.

    498 F. Supp. 3d 104 (D.D.C. 2020)   Cited 9 times

    Much of the background of this case is described in the Court's trilogy of opinions in Plaintiff's prior lawsuit seeking records related to his termination. SeeLamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp. , 228 F. Supp. 3d 28, 33–35 (D.D.C. 2017) (" Lamb I "); Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp. , 334 F. Supp. 3d 204, 209–210 (D.D.C. 2018) (" Lamb II "); Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp. , Civil Action No. 16-765 (RDM), 2019 WL 4141868, at *1–2 (D.D.C. Aug. 30, 2019) (" Lamb III ").

  2. Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp.

    334 F. Supp. 3d 204 (D.D.C. 2018)   Cited 13 times

    Jerry Goralski Lamb, proceeding pro se , brings this action under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, seeking records relating to his background investigation and suitability determination to work as a contractor for the Millennium Challenge Corporation ("MCC"), a foreign assistance corporation established in the executive branch of the federal government. In a prior opinion, the Court dismissed a number of Lamb's claims and granted summary judgment, in part, in favor of the MCC. SeeLamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp. , 228 F.Supp.3d 28, 36–38 (D.D.C. 2017) (" Lamb I "). In one respect, however, the Court concluded that the MCC had failed to carry its burden; although the MCC indicated that its search located five responsive records, including "the Report of Investigation," when it responded to Lamb's FOIA/Privacy Act request, the agency failed to make any mention of the Report of Investigation.

  3. Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp.

    Civil Action No. 16-765 (RDM) (D.D.C. Aug. 30, 2019)   Cited 2 times

    In the first chapter, the Court dismissed a number of Lamb's claims and granted partial summary judgment in favor of the MCC, and the Court granted Lamb leave to amend his complaint to add FOIA and Privacy Act claims against the Department of State ("State Department"), which assisted the MCC in conducting Lamb's background investigation. See Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp., 228 F. Supp. 3d 28, 36-38, 42 (D.D.C. 2017) ("Lamb I"). Following the Court's order in Lamb I, the MCC and the State Department released additional records to Lamb, and the State Department referred a 121-page document to the Department of Defense ("DOD"), which, in turn, released the document with redactions on two pages. Dkt. 63 at 6-7.

  4. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Land Mgmt.

    Civil Action No. 17-1208 (BAH) (D.D.C. Mar. 9, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    In such cases, "[t]he agency's failure to locate a document that the evidence indicates likely existed at the time of the search . . . may give rise to 'material doubt' about the adequacy of the agency's affidavits." Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp., 228 F. Supp. 3d 28, 36 (D.D.C. 2017) (citing Valencia-Lucena, 180 F.3d at 325; Iturralde, 315 F.3d at 315). As to the missing drafts of Secretarial Order No. 3348, plaintiff points to the fact that the Order was signed by Secretary Zinke on March 29, 2017, which fact alone gives ample cause to believe that at the time of DOI's initial search later that year, at least one draft should have been among the agency's records.

  5. Jones v. Hurwitz

    Civil Action No. 18-612 (RDM) (D.D.C. Jul. 13, 2018)

    This Court's local rules instruct the Court to consider "the nature and complexity of the action, the potential merit of the pro se party's claims, the demonstrated inability of the pro se party to retain counsel by other means, and the degree to which the interest of justice will be served by appointment of counsel." Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp., 228 F. Supp. 3d 28, 47 (D.D.C. 2017) (citing D.D.C. L.R. 83.11(b)(3)). Jones asserts that he is "in solitary confinement," which will "greatly limit [his] ability to litigate."

  6. Thompson v. Fulwood

    Civil Action No. 17-2603 (RDM) (D.D.C. Jul. 5, 2018)

    That means that "the Court must consider the nature and complexity of the action, the potential merit of the pro se party's claims, the demonstrated inability of the pro se party to retain counsel by other means, and the degree to which the interest of justice will be served by appointment of counsel." Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp., 228 F. Supp. 3d 28, 47 (D.D.C. 2017) (citing L. Cv. R. 83.11(b)(3)). As noted above, "mandatory parole" in the federal system is not, in fact, mandatory.

  7. Al Safarini v. Ashcroft

    Civil Action No. 17-430 (RDM) (D.D.C. Aug. 9, 2017)

    Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court "may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel," but under this court's local rules, "the Court must consider the nature and complexity of the action, the potential merit of the pro se party's claims, the demonstrated inability of the pro se party to retain counsel by other means, and the degree to which the interests of justice will be served by appointment of counsel." Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp., 228 F. Supp. 3d 28, 47 (D.D.C. 2017) (citing L. Cv. R. 83.11(b)(3)). Plaintiff's motion offers few details in support of his request, asserting only that he is "unfamiliar[] with the English language" and with "America's judicial system."

  8. Godson v. John Hopkins Med.

    Civil Action 23-3824 (RDM) (D.D.C. Feb. 5, 2024)

    Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the Court “may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” The local civil rules instruct the Court to consider “the nature and complexity of the action, the potential merit of the pro se party's claims, the demonstrated inability of the pro se party to retain counsel by other means, and the degree to which the interest of justice will be served by appointment of counsel.” Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp., 228 F.Supp.3d 28, 47 (D.D.C. 2017) (citing D.D.C. L.R. 83.11(b)(3)). Here, Godson has neither demonstrated that he is unable to afford counsel nor that he is unable to retain counsel by other means.

  9. Zhan v. Int'l Bank For Reconstruction & Dev. Comm'n

    Civil Action 1:21-cv-02793 (UNA) (D.D.C. Dec. 28, 2021)

    They have not demonstrated that the intended claims are particularly complex or that any greater interest of justice would be served by appointing counsel in this case than in any other pro se case. Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp., 228 F.Supp.3d 28, 47 (D.D.C. 2017); see also Local Civil Rule 83.11(b)(3). Considering the limited pro bono resources that are available to the court, and the mootness of the request, counsel will not be provided to plaintiffs at this time.

  10. DaVita Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.

    Civil Action No. 20-1798 (BAH) (D.D.C. Mar. 16, 2021)

    Id. (alteration and omission in original) (quoting Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp., 228 F. Supp. 3d 28, 36 (D.D.C. 2017)). As evidence that the thirty-six comments existed at the time of the Final Rule's promulgation in 1995, plaintiff points to the Final Rule's explicit reference to and brief description of them.