Gomez v. KellyGomez v. Kelly
more of a relationship to his “financial injuries,” because he intends to challenge information classification that could impact his success in seeking government records. But the availability of an adequate remedy under FOIA itself precludes any relief under the APA. See, e.g., Feinman v. FBI, 713 F.Supp.2d 70, 76 (D.D.C. 2010). Plaintiff may seek compensation for his FOIA fees in the lawsuits he brought pursuant to FOIA. To the extent that Plaintiff alleges informational injury—harm resulting from his inability to access the information he seeks—based on Executive Order 13526, he must seek redress under FOIA and not the APA. Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. United States Dep‘t of Justice, 846 F.3d 1235, 1244-46 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (explaining that “APA section 704 limits review under that statute to agency actions ‘for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court‘” and finding no APA review of FOIA “reading room” violations).
In sum, Plaintiff has not articulated any injury that meets the three requirements for standing, and therefore his claims are not justiciable. The court need not reach any of Defendants’ additional arguments for dismissal.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss will be granted by separate order, and Plaintiff‘s motion for a preliminary injunction will be denied as moot.
A corresponding order will issue separately.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, United States District Judge
Plaintiff is a native of Venezuela who resides in Walterboro, South Carolina. Currently, he is a student at the University of South Carolina. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, which he recently amended. See Pet. [Dkt. # 12]. Plaintiff seeks to compel the government to adjudicate his “Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal,” which he alleges the government received on June 9, 2016. Pending before the Court is plaintiff‘s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (“Mot.“). For the reasons explained below, the motion will be denied.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are extraordinary remedies. A temporary restraining order can be granted only if:
specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.
In applying the four-factored standard, district courts may employ a sliding scale as to which a particularly strong showing in one area can compensate for weakness in another. Hall, 599 F.Supp.2d at 3 (quoting CSX Transp., Inc. v. Williams, 406 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2005)). Nevertheless, both the United States Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for
II. DISCUSSION
As the basis for the TRO, plaintiff asserts that he “continues to suffer from the irreparable harm regarding the allegations set forth on paragraphs 35 and 36 of the Amended Complaint.” Mot. at 2. Those paragraphs set forth plaintiff‘s claims against President Donald J. Trump in his official and individual capacities. The claims can be described as a general rebuke of (1) President Trump‘s recently issued Executive Orders regarding immigration, which, according to plaintiff “are violent in nature and pointlessly aggressive towards asylee/refugees (and other immigrants in general),” and (2) President Trump‘s “intentional taunts on social media platforms such as “Twitter.” Am. Compl. ¶ 35. In the instant motion, plaintiff asserts that he has suffered “irreparable loss of enjoyment of life, emotional distress, and loss of consortium ... due to the harmful posts defendant Donald J. Trump communicates via social media[.]” Mot. at 2. Plaintiff concludes that he “will continue to suffer irreparable harm if immediate injunctive relief does not issue,” id. but he has not specified the action to be restrained and, most importantly, he has not cited any authority that would permit this Court to enjoin the President of the United States from communicating via social media.
In sum, “[e]very order granting an injunction and every restraining order must: (A) state the reasons why it issued; (B) state its terms specifically; and (C) describe in reasonable detail—and not by referring to the complaint or other document—the act or acts restrained or required.