Abuhouran v. Nicklin

3 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. Bonfilio v. Occupational Safety & Health Admin.

    320 F. Supp. 3d 152 (D.D.C. 2018)   Cited 4 times

    Bonfilio's motion for leave to add parties seeks to add individual OSHA inspectors as defendants. The proper defendant in a FOIA case, however, is the agency and the agency alone. See Abuhouran v. Nicklin, 764 F.Supp.2d 130, 131 (D.D.C. 2011) ( [A] federal agency is the proper defendant in a FOIA action ...").--------

  3. Montgomery v. Internal Revenue Serv.

    292 F. Supp. 3d 391 (D.D.C. 2018)   Cited 7 times
    Noting the enforceability of the Release in this plaintiff's case when he was before the Southern District of Ohio, which was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit

    FOIA "confers a right on any person to receive [requested] records" subject to applicable exemptions. Feinman v. FBI, 680 F.Supp.2d 169, 173 (D.D.C. 2010) (quoting Halperin v. CIA, 629 F.2d 144, 153 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ). Whether the IRS "properly searched for and disclosed records to Plaintiff[s] in response to a FOIA request simply has nothing to do" with whether the Montgomerys took valid deductions in relation to their partnerships or even whether an informant blew the whistle on them. Abuhouran v. Nicklin, 764 F.Supp.2d 130, 133 (D.D.C. 2011) (separating FOIA claim against agency from constitutional claims as misjoined). The "nucleus of facts," Page, 729 F.2d at 820, that the Court will need to consider in adjudicating Plaintiffs' FOIA claim—i.e. , whether the IRS's search was adequate and its claimed exemptions appropriate—is wholly different from what the previous courts assessed—namely, the Montgomerys' correct tax liability. The present suit is, therefore, not barred by res judicata .IV. Conclusion