King v. United States Department of Justice
Civil Action No. 2015-1445
| D.D.C. | Nov 10, 2017Background
- King, a pro se incarcerated plaintiff, filed a FOIA suit against DOJ components seeking records related to his convictions.
- DOJ moved to dismiss or for summary judgment; the Court repeatedly extended King long lead times (totaling 326 days) to oppose but warned no further extensions without extraordinary circumstances.
- King missed the final deadline (January 23, 2017), later sought an indefinite tolling due to prison lockdowns, and the Court ordered DOJ to report lockdown days; DOJ showed King had substantial non-lockdown time.
- The Court issued a March 28, 2017 memorandum granting summary judgment for FBI, OSG, and DEA, but denied as to EOUSA and allowed DOJ to renew on that claim.
- Months after the decision, King submitted parts of a late opposition/cross-motion and moved for leave to file out of time and for reconsideration, claiming mail loss and lockdowns as excuses.
- The Court found King’s lockdown excuse unsupported, concluded he lacked good cause or excusable neglect, and denied leave to file and the motion for reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leave to file opposition/cross-motion out of time (Rule 6) | King says he mailed "part one" before the ruling and lockdowns prevented timely filing of remaining parts | DOJ shows King had ample time, limited lockdowns, and that the filings were overdue by many weeks | Denied — King failed to show good cause or excusable neglect; prejudice and docket management weigh against reopening |
| Motion for reconsideration of interlocutory FOIA decision (Rule 54(b)) | King renews substantive FOIA objections and seeks reopening of the March 28 order | DOJ argues King offers no new facts, law, or reason why arguments couldn’t have been timely raised | Denied — no intervening change, new facts, or persuasive basis to revisit the interlocutory ruling; allowing reconsideration would reward missed deadlines |
Key Cases Cited
- Winston & Strawn, LLP v. McLean, 843 F.3d 503 (D.C. Cir.) (court may accept unopposed factual assertions supported by declarations and independently assess legal sufficiency)
- In re Vitamins Antitrust Class Actions, 327 F.3d 1207 (D.C. Cir.) (factors for excusable neglect analysis)
- Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380 (Sup. Ct.) (excusable neglect requires equitable, multi-factor inquiry)
- Cobell v. Jewell, 802 F.3d 12 (D.C. Cir.) (Rule 54(b) relief for interlocutory orders and court's inherent power to reconsider)
- In Def. of Animals v. Nat'l Insts. of Health, 543 F. Supp. 2d 70 (D.D.C.) (factors and standards for reconsideration under "as justice requires")