The case involved merchant mariners whose applications to renew Merchant Mariner Credentials were denied by the Coast Guard due to prior sexual assault convictions, leading them to file suit and add a FOIA claim seeking records on similar denials. Plaintiffs moved for attorneys' fees and costs under FOIA after receiving documents, but defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and to amend their answer. The court granted leave to amend, dismissed the FOIA claim for lack of jurisdiction, and denied the fees motion as moot. It reasoned that the FOIA request was submitted by plaintiffs' counsel on his own behalf using firm letterhead without referencing the plaintiffs or acting in a representative capacity, so plaintiffs lacked standing as they had not personally submitted a qualifying request.
In Kinney v. United States, pro se plaintiff Darryl Kinney sued the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging a decades-long conspiracy by military and government personnel to stalk him, vandalize his vehicles, spread rumors sabotaging his employment, and cause emotional distress, all purportedly triggered by his reporting of two federal judges over twenty years ago; he sought over $6 billion in damages and moved for default judgment. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the motion for default judgment, granted the government's motion to dismiss, and denied leave to file an amended complaint. The court held that the claims were patently insubstantial, presented no federal question suitable for review, and thus failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction, rendering the amended complaint similarly deficient and futile.
In this federal criminal case, defendant Shamell Naquan Joyner faces twenty-eight counts including Hobbs Act robbery, carjacking, and unlawful firearm possession arising from ten armed robberies and two carjackings in 2023. The district court addressed numerous pretrial motions, denying the defendant's motion to suppress tangible evidence seized from his home, granting in part and denying in part the government's request to introduce other-crimes evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 609, and resolving multiple defense motions in limine on topics such as in-court identifications, toolmark and DNA expert testimony, photographs, jail calls, and law-enforcement testimony. The court based its rulings on application of the Federal Rules of Evidence, disclosure requirements, and assessments of relevance, prejudice, and timeliness, while noting that certain late-disclosed evidence would not be presented at the scheduled June 2026 trial.
The case involves commercial fishing interests challenging four Exempted Fishing Permits issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service that extended the recreational red snapper fishing season in South Atlantic states as part of state data collection efforts under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Plaintiffs argued the permits violated the Administrative Procedure Act, and the court had previously granted a preliminary injunction halting the permits. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, as a recipient of one of the permits, moved to intervene as a defendant. The court granted the motion to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), finding that FWC had Article III standing and a sufficient protectable interest in preserving the Florida EFP that could be impaired by the litigation and that existing parties did not adequately represent its distinct interests.
The case involved plaintiff Frances Roberts-Gregory, a Black woman with a Ph.D., who alleged that the American Association for the Advancement of Science and federal defendants unlawfully discriminated against her on the basis of race and sex by offering a lower stipend for a Science & Technology Policy Fellowship and created a disparate impact through exceptions in the stipend policy for prior salaries and engineers. She further claimed retaliation when her fellowship offer was revoked after she complained about the alleged discrimination. The court granted in part and denied in part the federal defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing the disparate-treatment claim but allowing the disparate-impact and retaliation claims to proceed. The court reasoned that the plaintiff failed to state a disparate-treatment claim but had sufficiently identified specific employment practices for the disparate-impact claim and alleged facts permitting a plausible inference of joint involvement by the defendants in the revocation decision.
In United States v. Smith, the defendant moved to suppress evidence of oxycodone pills, a firearm, and cash recovered during a vehicle search following a traffic stop for expired tags. Officers observed what appeared to be an open container of alcohol in the back seat, ordered the defendant out, confirmed the alcohol, and searched the vehicle for additional POCA-related items, which led to the discovery of the other contraband and an arrest for POCA, drug trafficking, and firearm offenses. The court denied the motion, concluding that officers had probable cause to arrest for the POCA violation under D.C. Code § 25-1001(a)(2) and to search the vehicle under the automobile exception, with the scope expanding permissibly as additional evidence of criminal activity was found; the search of the defendant's person was also justified incident to arrest.
