Abuhouran v. Nicklin

4 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.

  3. Spaeth v. Michigan State Univ. Coll. of Law

    845 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2012)   Cited 46 times
    Finding that a plaintiff “cannot join defendants who simply engaged in similar types of behavior, but who are otherwise unrelated; some allegation of concerted action between defendants is required.”

    Fed.R.Civ.P. 21. “ ‘[S]everance of claims under Rule 21 results in the creation of separate actions.’ ” Abuhouran v. Nicklin, 764 F.Supp.2d 130, 133 (D.D.C.2011) (alteration in the original) (quoting In re Brand–Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litig., 264 F.Supp.2d 1372, 1376 (J.P.M.L.2003)). Accordingly, Spaeth's claims against Michigan State University College of Law are severed into one new case; his claims against the University of Missouri School of Law and Brady J. Deaton, Chancellor of the University of Missouri, are severed into another new case; his claims against Hastings College of the Law and its Chancellor and Dean, Frank H. Wu, are severed into another new case; and his claims against the University of Iowa College of Law and its President, Sally Mason, are severed into another new case.

  4. Abuhouran v. U.S. State Dep't

    843 F. Supp. 2d 73 (D.D.C. 2012)   Cited 7 times
    Concluding that where a third party "maintain[ed] a strong privacy interest" in non-public records concerning her "criminal prosecution and conviction," the agency "properly invoked exemptions 6 and 7(C) to deny records to plaintiff in the absence of [the third party's] written consent to disclosure of ... records or plaintiff's showing of an overriding public interest in their disclosure"

    In this action brought pro se, defendant State Department (“DOS”) moves to dismiss the amended complaint or for summary judgment on the remaining claim brought under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 USC § 552. See Order, 764 F.Supp.2d 130 (D.D.C.2011) [Doc. # 6] (severing Counts 1–9 of the Complaint and transferring the action comprised of those counts to the Middle District of Pennsylvania). Upon consideration of the parties' submissions and the relevant parts of the record, the Court will grant defendant's dispositive motion and enter judgment accordingly.