Windom v. Environmental Protection Agency
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:20-cv-02826
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Windom v. Environmental Protection Agency, Chief Magistrate Judge Spero granted fee-waiver status and ordered Windom to explain why his FOIA case should not be dismissed.
Cameron Windom and the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Health and Human Services, and Department of Housing and Urban Development; the order also set a later case-management conference.
What happened
In Windom v. Environmental Protection Agency, Cameron Windom, representing himself, claimed that the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development failed to comply with his Freedom of Information Act requests. The court found that the complaint appeared to contain leftover language about requests to different agencies and did not allege that Windom had submitted requests to these defendants.
The court granted Windom permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. It did not dismiss the case at this stage. Instead, it ordered Windom to explain why the complaint should not be dismissed under the statute governing screening of fee-waived cases.
Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero gave Windom until August 4, 2020, to file an amended complaint or explain why the current complaint was sufficient. The order stated that failure to respond would lead to reassignment to a district judge with a recommendation that the case be dismissed with prejudice, and it continued the case-management conference.
The detailed version
- Windom v. Environmental Protection Agency · No. 3:20-cv-02826
- Richard Seeborg
- July 7, 2020
Background
Cameron Windom, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) action against the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. He alleged that the agencies failed to comply with his FOIA requests.
The court stated that Windom’s complaint was nearly identical to a complaint he had filed in a different case against the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The current complaint still included language saying that Windom had submitted requests to those other agencies. The court noted that the complaint did not allege that Windom had submitted a request to the EPA, HHS, or HUD.
Rulings and required response
The court granted Windom’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee. It also ordered him to show cause—meaning to explain—why the action should not be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which governs screening of cases filed without payment of the filing fee. The order did not dismiss the action.
By August 4, 2020, Windom was required either to file an amended complaint addressing the identified deficiencies or to respond by arguing that the existing complaint was sufficient. The order identified the needed allegations as how he submitted his requests, how the defendants responded, and what steps he took to pursue administrative remedies. Any amended complaint had to use the caption and case number in the order, identify itself as a first amended complaint, and include all facts, claims, and defendants rather than incorporating the original complaint by reference. The court also stated that Windom could attach copies of the requests he submitted to the three agencies.
If Windom did not respond by the deadline, the case would be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation that it be dismissed with prejudice. The court continued the previously scheduled case-management conference to October 30, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. The order also referred Windom to a federal pro bono help desk for basic assistance, while stating that the help desk could not provide legal representation.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.