Kunstler v. Central Intelligence Agency
- John Koeltl
- 1:22-cv-06913
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kunstler v. Central Intelligence Agency, Judge Koeltl received a request to extend defendants’ deadline for an anticipated motion to dismiss; no ruling appears.
The plaintiffs and the Federal Defendants—the Central Intelligence Agency and Michael R. Pompeo—were affected by the requested change to the deadline for filing a motion to dismiss.
What happened
Kunstler v. Central Intelligence Agency concerns a letter from the federal defendants—the Central Intelligence Agency and Michael R. Pompeo—asking for more time to respond to the plaintiffs’ amended complaint. The defendants requested moving the deadline from February 17 to March 17, 2023.
The defendants said the amended complaint added a direct Fourth Amendment claim against the CIA and that they needed more time to evaluate it, citing their workload and an attorney’s planned absence. The plaintiffs opposed another delay and described the defendants’ prior extensions and filings.
The text is a request letter addressed to Judge John G. Koeltl, not an order resolving the request. It does not state that the extension was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Kunstler v. Central Intelligence Agency · No. 1:22-cv-06913
- John Koeltl
- Feb. 16, 2023
Nature of the document
The provided text is a letter from Assistant United States Attorney Jean-David Barnea, writing for the Central Intelligence Agency and Michael R. Pompeo, identified together as the “Federal Defendants.” The letter asks Judge John G. Koeltl for a one-month extension of the deadline to file an anticipated motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint.
Background
The letter states that, after a January 20 pre-motion conference, the court gave the plaintiffs until January 27 to amend their complaint and set February 17 as the deadline for the defendants to move to dismiss the amended complaint. The amended complaint allegedly added a direct claim against the CIA under the Fourth Amendment. The letter contrasts that claim with the original complaint’s claim against the CIA under the judge-made doctrine recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents.
The Federal Defendants requested that the deadline be moved from February 17 to March 17, 2023, with the rest of the briefing schedule adjusted accordingly. They cited the need to evaluate the new claim, the attorney’s workload, and the attorney’s expected absence from the office during most of March 6 through March 10.
Parties’ positions
The plaintiffs did not consent to the requested extension. According to the letter, they objected to another delay and recounted earlier events involving the defendants’ deadlines and communications with the court.
The Federal Defendants responded that, contrary to the plaintiffs’ description, they were not in default because 60 days had not elapsed from service of the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(2) and (3). They also stated that they submitted a pre-motion conference letter instead of a motion to dismiss in accordance with the court’s individual practices.
Disposition
The provided text does not contain an order or state whether Judge Koeltl granted or denied the requested extension. Accordingly, it does not resolve the anticipated motion to dismiss or the claims in the amended complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.