Rudolph Contreras

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.

procedure

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.

proceduretorts & liability

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

environmentfederal powerprocedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

civil rightslabor & employment

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.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

In Mumin v. Burns, a Somali citizen living in Kenya and married to a U.S. citizen sued State Department officials to compel adjudication of his immigrant visa application, which had been refused under INA § 221(g) and placed in administrative processing following his consular interview. The plaintiff alleged that the ongoing delay violated the Administrative Procedure Act and sought mandamus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1361. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that neither the INA nor applicable regulations impose a clear, nondiscretionary duty on consular officers to take further action or re-adjudicate a visa application after an initial refusal. The court reasoned that administrative processing is a permissible step that allows officers to revisit eligibility if circumstances change, and any statutory gap permitting such practices must be addressed by Congress rather than the judiciary.

immigrationfederal powerprocedure

In United States v. Joyner, the defendant faced a superseding indictment charging him with ten Hobbs Act robberies, two carjackings, related firearm offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and other federal crimes stemming from a series of armed incidents across D.C., Maryland, and Virginia in April and May 2023. The district court denied three pretrial motions: one to sever counts related to a single carjacking, one to dismiss a count as multiplicitous, and one to dismiss multiple counts for failure to state an offense or improper venue. The court reasoned that the charges were properly joined because they shared a common scheme or pattern, the indictment adequately alleged all elements including the interstate commerce component of the Hobbs Act violations, and venue was sufficiently pled in the District of Columbia based on the defendant's alleged return of stolen property there. These rulings allowed the consolidated trial to proceed as scheduled.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned ICE's compliance with statutory requirements under 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(B) for individuals known as 'age-outs'—former unaccompanied alien children transferred to ICE custody upon turning 18. A prior permanent injunction from 2021 required ICE to consider the least restrictive setting and alternatives to detention after assessing danger and flight risk, and prohibited rearrest without materially changed circumstances. In 2025 the court found ongoing violations through a policy of improper rearrests and detentions. Plaintiffs then moved to clarify and enforce the order. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, ordering release of certain detainees and ongoing information sharing, relying on its authority under the APA to set aside agency actions inconsistent with the statute and prior injunction.

immigration

This case involves commercial fishing businesses, trade organizations, and individual fishermen challenging four Exempted Fishing Permits issued in May 2026 by the Secretary of Commerce and the National Marine Fisheries Service to South Atlantic states. The permits exempt certain recreational fishing data-collection activities from federal regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which governs fishery management and requires prevention of overfishing. Plaintiffs argued that the permits violated the Administrative Procedure Act because they resulted from inadequate decision-making and would likely permit overfishing of red snapper stocks in violation of the MSA's conservation standards. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo, finding that the permits were likely unlawful under the MSA and APA. The court also set a nominal bond and granted leave for amicus briefs from environmental groups.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

The case involves charges against D.C. Councilmember Trayon White, Sr., for one count of bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2), alleging he accepted cash payments totaling $35,000 from a confidential human source in exchange for using his official position to help extend government contracts for the source's businesses. The court denied the defendant's two motions to dismiss the indictment and resolved the parties' multiple motions in limine regarding evidentiary issues. The court reasoned that the indictment adequately informed the defendant of the nature of the accusation, that certain evidence of prior interactions and the defendant's use of the funds was either intrinsic to the charged conduct or admissible under Rules 404(b) and 403 because its probative value on whether he retained the bribes was not substantially outweighed by risks of prejudice, and that other proffered evidence could be authenticated or was relevant without undue prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Tarren Evans, a former Clinical Nursing Director at defendant Individual Advocacy Group, Inc. (IAG), alleged that she was terminated after raising concerns about the backdating of training and patient documents submitted to the D.C. Department of Disability Services, which she believed involved misrepresentations to obtain federal healthcare funds. Evans brought claims for retaliation under the federal False Claims Act whistleblower provision, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h), a parallel claim under the D.C. False Claims Act, and wrongful discharge. The court denied IAG's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), concluding that the amended complaint sufficiently alleged protected activity, employer notice of that activity through reports outside her normal chain of command, and a causal connection to her termination. The core reasoning was that reasonable inferences from the pleaded facts established that Evans had put IAG on notice of her concerns regarding compliance with federal funding conditions.

labor & employmentcriminal law

In United States v. Smith, defendant Eric Malik Smith moved to suppress a firearm recovered in plain view from a vehicle's wheel well and his DNA obtained via buccal swab, arguing both were fruits of an unlawful arrest lacking probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied the motion, holding that the firearm was discovered and seized independently by police after security guards observed and reported it, prior to and separate from the subsequent arrest inside the building. The court further found that the search warrant for the DNA was supported by probable cause based on an affidavit detailing the events, and that the arrest did not taint the evidence as the firearm was not obtained incident to the arrest.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

The case involves a pro se plaintiff, a state inmate, suing the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury and another Treasury official, claiming that defendants failed to honor a 2022 contract with the United States and seeking enforcement of the contract along with production of accounting records. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The court held that the complaint failed to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) because it lacked a short and plain statement of the grounds for jurisdiction and of any cognizable claim, consisting instead of vague and conclusory allegations that did not provide fair notice to defendants.

procedurefederal power

The case involved a pro se plaintiff suing a case analyst in the U.S. Supreme Court Clerk's office under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging improper handling and denial of his habeas corpus petition, rehearing requests, and motions for records, and seeking court documents and damages. The district court granted the plaintiff's in forma pauperis application but dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The court reasoned that § 1983 does not apply to federal actors, that lower federal courts lack jurisdiction to supervise or compel actions by the Supreme Court or its staff, that the defendants enjoy absolute judicial immunity, and that the federal judiciary is exempt from FOIA requests.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a New York resident suing Monroe County, its family court, a judge, sheriff’s office, public defender’s office, a guardian ad litem, and a mediator over child custody, visitation, and protection order decisions, alleging violations of his civil rights and seeking damages plus equitable relief such as vacating orders and restoring parental rights. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction, which bars federal courts from issuing child custody decrees or resolving related parental disputes, and under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibiting review of state court judgments. It further found venue improper because all parties and events were located in New York with no connection to the District of Columbia.

family lawcivil rightsfederal powerprocedure

The case involved a pro se plaintiff who filed a complaint seeking an anti-stalking temporary restraining order against the defendant, identified as the Solicitor General of the District of Columbia, along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The complaint alleged conspiracies involving multiple court cases where the plaintiff's constitutional rights were purportedly violated, including references to Satan, COVID-19, and claims for billions in damages. The court granted the in forma pauperis application but dismissed the complaint. The core reasoning was that the complaint lacked an arguable basis in law or fact, postulating fanciful events and circumstances, making it subject to dismissal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

civil rightsprocedure

In Moon v. Henderson, a pro se plaintiff filed a complaint seeking a temporary restraining order against U.S. Circuit Judge Karen L. Henderson and other unidentified individuals, alleging they criminally conspired to dismiss several of his prior cases in ways that violated his constitutional rights and caused him fear and damages. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed the complaint. The court reasoned that the complaint was frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because it lacked an arguable basis in law or fact and postulated events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind.

procedurecivil rightscriminal law

This case concerned Defendant Demontra Harris's violations of the conditions of his supervised release following a prior conviction. The U.S. Probation Office petitioned the court, and a magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation finding that Harris had committed one or more crimes and possessed an unregistered firearm and ammunition while on supervision. No objections were filed by either party. The district court adopted the report in full as its opinion and revoked Harris's supervised release. The court sentenced him to one month of imprisonment with no additional period of supervised release.

criminal lawguns

Plaintiff Anthony Brodzki, appearing pro se, filed suit against the FBI alleging civil rights personal injury and slander, seeking $5 million in damages and an injunction to remove an alleged monitoring device. The court granted his application to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Federal courts possess only limited jurisdiction, and the FBI, as a federal agency, enjoys sovereign immunity absent an explicit statutory waiver. Although the Federal Tort Claims Act provides a limited waiver for certain damages claims, the plaintiff failed to exhaust required administrative remedies before filing suit, a step that is jurisdictional in this circuit. The complaint therefore did not establish any basis for the court to exercise jurisdiction over the claims.

civil rightsprocedure