Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Okeayainneh v. U.S. Dept of Justice

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division

January 8, 2020

JULIAN OKEAYAINNEH REG. # 20515-112
v.
U.S. DEPT OF JUSTICE, ET AL.

         SECTION P

          JAMES D. CAIN, JR. JUDGE.

          MEMORANDUM ORDER

          KATHLEEN KAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Before the court is a complaint [doc. 1] filed by pro se plaintiff Julian Okeayainneh, brought under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Privacy Act of 1974 (“Privacy Act”), 5 U.S.C. § 552a, seeking the production of certain documents. Okeayainneh is an inmate in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) and is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution at Oakdale, Louisiana (“FCIO”).

         I.

         Background

         In the instant matter, Okeayainneh names as defendants the United States Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) and the Office of Information Policy (“OIP”). Doc. 1, p. 3, ¶ IV. Plaintiff asserts that during 2019, he made a series of proper, written requests under FOIA and the Privacy Act to each of the defendants. Id. at p. 4. The first and second request were issued to the BOP in Grand Prairie, Texas, on January 25, 2019 and February 1, 2019. Doc. 1, att. 2, p. 11, 13. The third request was issued to the OIP in Washington, D.C., on March 14, 2019. Id. at p. 15. He contends that he has exhausted his administrative remedies and that the instant suit is now properly before this Court. Id. at p. 5.

         II.

         Law & Analysis

         A. Frivolity Review

         Since plaintiff is a prisoner seeking redress from an officer or employee of a governmental entity, his complaint is subject to preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A which authorizes such screening even if the prisoner-plaintiff has, like plaintiff, paid the full filing fee. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579-80 (5th Cir.1998) (per curiam). Section 1915A(b) provides for sua sponte dismissal of the complaint, or any portion thereof, if the Court finds it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.

         A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Gonzalez v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016, 1019 (5th Cir. 1998). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it is clear the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Doe v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 153 F.3d 211, 215 (5th Cir. 1998). When determining whether a complaint is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the court must accept plaintiff's allegations as true. Horton v. Cockrell, 70 F.3d 397, 400 (5th Cir. 1995) (frivolity); Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d 1022, 1025 (5th Cir. 1998) (failure to state a claim).

         B. Venue

         Plaintiff contends that venue is proper in this Court under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(g)(5), and 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because “all of the events and omissions giving rise to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.