Risenhoover v. Blinken, No. 21-2503, 2023 WL 8600563 (D.D.C. Dec. 12, 2023) (Howell, J.)

Risenhoover v. Blinken, No. 21-2503, 2023 WL 8600563 (D.D.C. Dec. 12, 2023) (Howell, J.)

Re:  Unclear request for records

Disposition:  Granting defendant’s motion to dismiss

• Litigation Considerations, Mootness and Other Grounds for Dismissal:  The court relates that “Defendant seeks dismissal of the complaint on grounds of res judicata due to the prior judgment in [Risenhoover v. U.S. Dep’t of State, No. 21-2563, 2023 WL 2043218 (D.D.C. Feb. 16, 2023) (Howell, C.J.) (“Risenhoover II”)].”  The court explains that “[t]hree elements must be satisfied for a final judgment to preclude litigation of an issue in a subsequent case:  ‘[1], the same issue now being raised must have been contested by the parties and submitted for judicial determination in the prior case[; 2] the issue must have been actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction in that prior case[; and] [3] preclusion in the second case must not work a basic unfairness to the party bound by the first determination.’”  The court finds that “[t]he first requirement of issue preclusion is satisfied because this lawsuit is based on the same FOIA request underlying Risenhoover II, where the government prevailed on a contested summary judgment motion.”  “The second requirement of an actual and necessary determination by a court of competent jurisdiction also is satisfied.”  “In Risenhoover II, this Court found that the FOIA request failed ‘to reasonably describe the records sought,’ and that the ‘record showing defendants’ “multiple good faith efforts” to have plaintiff clarify or narrow his request evinces no improper withholding under FOIA.’”  “‘It is well established that a lower court judgment may have preclusive effect despite the lack of appellate review.’”  “As for the third requirement, the Court finds no unfairness in holding plaintiff to the prior judgment since he had the opportunity to brief the withholding issue in that case.”