Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

FRANK v. U.S. DOJ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


July 19, 1996

ROBERT FRANK, Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: ROBERTSON

MEMORANDUM

 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, asserting that he had "begun a study of the Justice Department and its practice of loaning federal jurisdiction and forums to state prosecutors for 'the second bite at the apple' for convictions of prior state defendants," filed a targeted FOIA request to the Department of Justice asking for "the number of Special Assistant United States Attorneys that were state and local prosecutors during the first three months of 1988," for the same information as of January 28, 1988, and for the same information as to active participants in trials in the U.S. District Court within the Eighth Circuit during that time period. He was not satisfied with the answers he received, and he filed suit in this Court under the Freedom of Information Act for an injunction requiring defendants "to permit access to the requested documents and/or information . . . ."

 The government moves to dismiss or for summary judgment on the basis of affidavits asserting that the Executive Office of the United States Attorneys conducted reasonable searches and turned over everything (which was very little) responsive to plaintiff's request. The argument is that "because plaintiff was provided with the only information located responsive to his FOIA request in its entirety," this case is moot. Plaintiff, attaching a portion of the transcript of his trial in which the prosecutor asserted in open court that he had made a telephone check with the Justice Department (this was on January 28, 1988) and that there were 241 Special Assistant United States Attorneys as of that date, responded that the government's motion was a "dog that won't hunt" and asserted either that the prosecutor had completely fabricated the information he provided to the trial court or that defendants had not made a real effort to find responsive records.

 Plaintiff misunderstands the uses and limits of the Freedom of Information Act, and the government's motion obscures its own best argument, which is that FOIA provides access to existing records but does not establish a research service. FOIA responsive to the request having been released to the requestor, the action is moot. Tijerina v. Walters, 261 U.S. App. D.C. 301, 821 F.2d 789, 799 (D.C. Cir. 1987). An appropriate order accompanies this memorandum.

 James Robertson

 United States District Judge

 Dated: July 19, 1996

 ORDER

 Upon consideration of defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment [# 15], and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, it is this 19th day of July 1996

 ORDERED that this case be dismissed as moot.

 James Robertson

 United States District Judge

19960719

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.