McCoy v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 775 F. Supp. 2d 188

McCoy, pro se FOIA plaintiff, sues FBI et al. in DC District Court.
Court vacated the order granting IFP and required full filing fee by March 1, 2011.
McCoy seeks to supplement his complaint or reinstate IFP via Rule 15(d) and motion for reconsideration.
Court explains Rule 15(d) governs post-pleading transactions/events, not IFP/PLRA issues.
Court discusses three-strikes 1915(g) and imminent-danger arguments; FOIA action is not connected to prison danger.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 15(d) permits supplementation here	McCoy argues Rule 15(d) allows post-pleading discussion of PLRA/IFP.	15(d) concerns post-pleading transactions, not IFP/PLRA.	Denied; supplementation not proper under 15(d).
Whether reconsideration of vacating IFP order is warranted	McCoy contends extraordinary circumstances justify reconsideration.	No clear error or extraordinary circumstance; discretionary denial appropriate.	Denied; no grounds for reconsideration.
Whether McCoy qualifies for imminent-danger exception to 1915(g)	Argues imminent danger in prison justifies IFP.	Imminent danger not connected to FOIA claim; exception inapplicable.	Not applicable; FOIA claim unrelated to danger.
Whether the three-strikes provision is unconstitutional	Three-strikes violates access to court.	Three-strikes simply requires prepayment after multiple frivolous claims.	Constitutionality preserved; policy concerns do not prevail.

Alston v. FBI, 747 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D.D.C. 2010) (imminent-danger exception requirement for FOIA/claims)
Ibrahim v. District of Columbia, 208 F.3d 1032 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (three-strikes effect on right of access to court)
Qi-Zhuo v. Meissner, 70 F.3d 136 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (plain-language reading of § 1915(g))
Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1988) (interlocutory reconsideration standards; finality concerns)