Abuhouran v. Nicklin

2 Citing cases

  1. Pinson v. U.S. Dep't of Justice

    74 F. Supp. 3d 283 (D.D.C. 2014)   Cited 18 times
    Transferring an incarcerated plaintiff's claims for equitable relief from the District of Columbia to the District of Colorado under § 1404 because the plaintiff was incarcerated in Colorado and a large portion of the records and witnesses were located there

    SeeSpaeth v. Michigan State Univ. Coll. of Law, 845 F.Supp.2d 48, 57 n. 13 (D.D.C.2012) (severing claims prior to transferring, per § 1404(a)); Abuhouran v. Nicklin, 764 F.Supp.2d 130, 132 (D.D.C.2011) ( “[B]ecause § 1406(a) contemplates the transfer of a ‘case,’ ... the claims must first be severed into separate cases ....”); accordWyndham Assocs. v. Bintliff, 398 F.2d 614, 618–19 (2d Cir.1968) (recognizing that claims must first be severed into separate actions prior to being transferred or retained under § 1404(a)). For the reasons discussed below, the Court i) severs Plaintiff's preliminary injunction because it involves factual events distinct from those forming the basis of the complaint, and ii) severs Plaintiff's Privacy Act claim because it is wholly unrelated to his FOIA claim.

  2. Kelly v. Judge Advocate Gen. of the Navy

    CASE NO. 12-3067-SAC (D. Kan. Dec. 18, 2012)

    "[T]he only proper defendant in a FOIA action is a federal agency." Abuhouran v. Nicklin, 764 F.Supp.2d 130, 133 (D.D.C. 2011)(quoting Isasi v. Jones, 594 F.Supp.2d 1,4 (D.D.C. 2009), aff'd 2010 WL 2574034 (C.A.D.C. 2010)); Scherer v. U.S., 241 F.Supp.2d 1270, 1278 (D.Kan.), aff'd 78 Fed.Appx. 687 (10th Cir. 2003). In the screening order, the court found that the only named defendant in this case even associated with a federal agency was the "Judge Advocate General of the Navy," and that plaintiff alleged no facts establishing that this court has personal jurisdiction over this defendant or any of the other 5 named defendants, all of whom appeared to be residents of states other than Kansas.