Juan Carlos Ocasio, Appellant v. United States Department of Justice, Appellee

Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Juan Carlos Ocasio, Appellant v. United States Department of Justice, Appellee

Juan Carlos Ocasio, Appellant v. Merit Systems Protection Board, Appellee

No. 17-5005, No. 17-5085

    Decided: August 23, 2017

BEFORE: Henderson, Brown, and Srinivasan, Circuit Judges

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance in No. 17-5005, the opposition thereto, and the reply; the motion to consolidate and the opposition thereto; and this court's May 9, 2017, order in No. 17-5085, it is

ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance in No. 17-5005 be granted. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). Appellant challenges the government's withholding under Freedom of Information Act Exemption 7(C), 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C), documents that are part of a Federal Bureau of Investigation investigative file of a private citizen. To the extent appellant asserts a public interest in disclosure, such interest is outweighed by the substantial privacy interests in this investigative file. See Shrecker v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 349 F.3d 657, 666 (D.C. Cir. 2003). The government's declaration and Vaughn index provided sufficient justification for withholding the documents in their entirety. See Mead Data Central, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 260-61 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (permitting documents to be withheld in their entirety when nonexempt portions “are inextricably intertwined with exempt portions”). It is

FURTHER ORDERED, on the court's own motion, that No. 17-5085 be dismissed for lack of prosecution. See D.C. Cir. Rule 38. By order issued May 9, 2017, appellant was ordered to either pay the filing and docketing fees or file in this court a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis by June 8, 2017. To date, appellant has not done so, despite this court's May 9, 2017, order warning him that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the case. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to consolidate be dismissed as moot.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FindLaw Career Center

    Select a Job Title


      Post a Job  |  Careers Home

    View More