Snarr v. BOP, No. 19-1421, 2020 WL 3639708 (D.D.C. July 6, 2020) (Jackson, J.)

Snarr v. BOP, No. 19-1421, 2020 WL 3639708 (D.D.C. July 6, 2020) (Jackson, J.)

Re:  Two requests submitted by Office of the Federal Defender for the District of Utah for records concerning other inmates involved in plaintiff's prosecution

Disposition:  Granting defendant's motion to dismiss; denying plaintiff's motion to amend

• Litigation Considerations, Standing:  The court relates that while plaintiff's "complaint alleges that [the requests] were submitted 'on [plaintiff's] behalf'" "[p]laintiff does not contend that he was named in any communications between the public defender and the agency."  "He does not assert that his defense team made it clear to BOP that the FOIA requests were submitted on his behalf, and the records supplied to the Court do not reflect that he was mentioned."  "Therefore, when BOP failed to respond to [the Office of the Federal Defender for the District of Utah's] FOIA requests, plaintiff did not suffer an injury in fact, and he does not have standing."  "Thus, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear his claim . . . and it will grant defendant's motion to dismiss."
  
  Additionally, the court notes that "[a]t this point in the proceedings, plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, is entitled to amend the complaint as of right."  "But he has declined to do that."  "Instead, he has insisted that the Court rule first on the motion to dismiss, and in that motion, the defense has demonstrated this Court's lack of jurisdiction over the original complaint."  "Once the Court makes that finding, in accordance with plaintiff's preferences, it lacks jurisdiction to entertain a request for leave to amend to cure the jurisdictional problems."  "Given the strategy the plaintiff has elected to employ, the Court will grant defendant's motion to dismiss and deny plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend."