Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 1 of 31 PageID #: 137

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


LOUIS FLORES,


AMENDED



Plaintiff,
COMPLAINT FOR

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
v.



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
Case No. : 15-CV-2627
JUSTICE,


(Gleeson, J.)(Mann, R.L.)



Defendant.





INTRODUCTION
1.

Plaintiff Louis Flores (Flores) brings this action against Defendant

United States Department of Justice (DOJ) to compel compliance with the Freedom
of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 (FOIA), for injunctive and other appropriate
relief, seeking the immediate processing and release of agency records requested by
Plaintiff from Defendant.
2.

Plaintiff also seeks compliance with the memorandum dated

January 21, 2009, and authored and signed by United States President Barack
Obama (the President), affirming the importance of a "profound national
commitment to ensuring an open Government (the Presidents FOIA
Memorandum). See Barack Obama, Memorandum of January 21, 2009 : Freedom of
Information Act (Jan. 26, 2009), 74 Fed. Reg. 4683, http://www.justice.gov/sites/
default/files/oip/legacy/2014/07/23/presidential-foia.pdf.

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 2 of 31 PageID #: 138

3.

Plaintiff further seeks compliance with the March 19, 2009, FOIA

guidelines for the Executive Branch issued by Eric Holder, Jr., then the Attorney
General of the United States (Holder), reiterating the President's commitment to
honoring FOIA (the Attorney General's FOIA Guidelines). According to the
Attorney Generals FOIA Guidelines, Holder wrote, in part, that I would like to
emphasize that responsibility for effective FOIA administration belongs to all of
usit is not merely a task to an agencys FOIA staff. We all must do our part to
ensure open government. See Eric Holder, Jr., Memorandum for Heads of Executive
Departments and Agencies, Office of the Attorney General (Mar. 19, 2009),
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2009/06/24/foia-memo-
march2009.pdf.
4.

On March 27, 2013, Plaintiff submitted an electronic mail (the

E-mail Request) to Angela George (George), a prosecutor with the U.S. Attorneys
Office for the District of Columbia, seeking records and information related to the
governments prosecution of Lt. Daniel Choi (Lt. Choi). Lt. Choi prominently
exerted political pressure on the U.S. Congress and on the President to overturn the
U.S. militarys formerly discriminatory policy known as Dont Ask, Dont Tell. See
Liz Halloran, With Repeal Of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' An Era Ends, NPR (Sept. 20, 2011),
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/20/140605121/with-repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell-
an-era-ends (noting that, you had activists like Army Lt. Dan Choi handcuffing
himself to the White House fence, getting in people's faces) ; William Branigin et al.,
Obama signs DADT repeal before big, emotional crowd, The Washington Post (Dec.
22, 2010), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/
22/AR2010122201888.html. After subsequent follow-up by the Plaintiff, the

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 3 of 31 PageID #: 139

Plaintiff was directed on April 17, 2013, by Bill Miller, a public information officer
with the U.S. Attorneys Office for the District of Columbia (Miller), to submit a
request to the Executive Office for the United States Attorneys of the DOJ (the
EOUSA). As directed, Plaintiff submitted on April 30, 2013, a FOIA request (the
Request) to the EOUSA. On April 30, 2013, a courtesy copy of the Request was
sent to by electronic mail to Bill Miller and to George, amongst others.
5.

Plaintiff made numerous attempts to communicate with the EOUSA,

principally but not exclusively with Sanjay Sola, a paralegal with the EOUSA,
including, but not limited to, on May 14, 2013 ; June 5, 2013 ; June 18, 2013 ; July 5,
2013 ; July 8, 2013 ; July 9, 2013 ; September 20, 2013 ; and October 17, 2013, to
obtain a response to the Request. When no response was ever received, Plaintiff
engaged counsel to prepare an appeal of the DOJs constructive denial of the
Request.
6.

On December 6, 2013, the law firm of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP,

former counsel to Plaintiff (the Counsel), submitted an Appeal of Constructive

Denial of Freedom of Information Act Request (the Appeal) to the Office of
Information Policy of the DOJ (the OIP).
7.

After instances of communication between Counsel and the DOJ, the

OIP replied to Counsel on May 20, 2014, informing Counsel that the Request was
being remanded by the OIP to the EOUSA for a search for responsive records,
adding that, If your client is dissatisfied with my action on your appeal, the
Freedom of Information Act permits him to file a lawsuit in federal district court in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 522(a)(4)(B).

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 4 of 31 PageID #: 140

8.

For over two years,, neither of the U.S. Attorneys Office, the EOUSA,

the OIP, nor the DOJ (collectively, the DOJ components) released any responsive
records or explained why responsive records were being withheld, each an act of
bad faith. It was only after Plaintiff filed the original Complaint in this case that the
EOUSA provided, on behalf of the U.S. Attorneys Office for the District of Columbia, a
response to the Request (the FOIA Response). When the EOUSA prepared the
FOIA Response, the EOUSA : (i) claimed that no responsive records were found in
the U.S. Attorneys Office for the District of Columbia and (ii) admitted that the FOIA
Response being provided to Plaintiff was nonresponsive to the Request.
Notwithstanding, once Plaintiff received and reviewed the FOIA Response, Plaintiff
noted that the FOIA Response principally consisted of an incomplete copy of the
pleadings in the governments prosecution case against Lt. Choi. Furthermore,
Plaintiff found references in the FOIA Response to the kinds of records Plaintiff had
been requesting but were being denied by the DOJ components. Plaintiff further
alleges bad faith conduct on the part of the DOJ components, in particular the
EOUSA, in deliberately preparing an incomplete FOIA Response, in deliberately
omitting responsive records, and, by virtue of having produced a partial copy of the
pleadings in the governments case against Lt. Choi, in creating a red herring to
intentionally create confusion surrounding the records that are truly responsive to
the Request.
9.

The failure of the DOJ components to process and release

responsive records is of particular concern, because the Request relates to

controversial actions by the government to prosecute activists, including the use of
prosecutorial overreach and vindictive prosecution in cases against activists, the

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 5 of 31 PageID #: 141

practice of which is a matter of intense and ongoing public debate. Indeed, the
public has no information about the internal mechanisms of the DOJ, which rule or
govern the targeted prosecution of activists. Nor does the public have any
information about how the DOJ balances First Amendment rights, other
Constitutional rights, civil liberties, and other civil rights of activists against charges
that the DOJ brings against activists. The DOJ has separately made public records in
respect of how the DOJ investigates and prosecutes journalists, but no similar
records have been released in respect of activists. The prosecution of activists has
provoked public outrage and calls for legislative reform. See, e.g., Tom Risen, Barrett
Brown's Prison Time Raises Cybersecurity, Journalism Concerns, U.S. News & World
Report (Jan. 23, 2015), http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/23/
barrett-browns-prison-time-raises-cybersecurity-journalism-concerns ;

Justin

Peters, Congress Has a Chance to Fix Its Bad Internet Crime Law : Itll probably blow
it, Slate (Apr. 24, 2015), http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/
2015/04/aaron_s_law_why_it_s_needed_to_fix_the_horrendously_bad_cfaa.html.
The release of records sought by the Request would benefit the public as lawmakers
propose legislative reforms, thereby likely to contribute significantly to public
understanding of the operations or activities of the government. See 5 U.S.C.
552(a)(4)(A)(iii).
10.

Plaintiff further seeks relief from prohibitions on his speech in

violation of the First Amendment. The U.S. government prohibits complete speech
about the scope of the governments conduct as it pertains to how it balances First
Amendment rights, other Constitutional rights, civil liberties, and other civil rights
of activists against charges that the DOJ brings against activists. This framework

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 6 of 31 PageID #: 142

prevents Plaintiff, readers of Plaintiffs Web sites, the public, and activists from
forming and sharing their own informed perspective about the governments
conduct. Plaintiff will freely publish records responsive to the Request on the
Internet. Defendants position forces Plaintiff to engage in speech that has been
restricted by government officials to incomplete speech that lacks information in the
records sought by the Request filed by Plaintiff under FOIA, and Defendants
position forces citizens to engage in restricted speech or else face vindictive
prosecution if citizens engage in civic activities by acting as activists to pressure the
government for reform. By having refused for over two years to answer the Request
and then, once having answered the Request, producing records that were
admittedly nonresponsive to the Request, Defendant provided no authority for its
ability to impose those speech restrictions on other journalists, citizens, or activists,
who are not party to the Request submitted by Plaintiff. Plaintiffs ability to speak,
meaningfully assemble with other journalists, citizens, or activists, and to discuss
any petition to the government for a redress of grievances are being
unconstitutionally restricted by Defendants pattern and practice of denying the
Request and other FOIA requests. These restrictions constitute an unconstitutional
prior restraint and content-based restriction on, and government viewpoint
discrimination against, Plaintiffs right to speak about information of the
governments conduct, which is of public concern. Plaintiff is entitled under the
First Amendment to be provided complete information about the governments
conductincluding how the government balances First Amendment rights, other
Constitutional rights, civil liberties, and other civil rights of activists against charges

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 7 of 31 PageID #: 143

that the DOJ brings against activistsand in a means by which Defendant can
account for and explain its unconstitutional speech restrictions.
11.

Plaintiff now asks the Court for an injunction requiring the DOJ to

process the Request immediately and to provide records responsive to the Request.
Plaintiff also seeks orders : (i) enjoining Defendant from assessing fees for the
processing of the Request and (ii) assessing penalties and sanctions on the
Defendant for acts of bad faith.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12.

This Court has both subject-matter jurisdiction of the FOIA claim

and personal jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B),

(a)(6)(E)(iii). This Court also has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1331 and 5 U.S.C. 701-706. This Court also has original subject matter
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331, as this matter arises under the Constitution,
laws, or treaties of the United States.
13.

Venue lies in this district under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B). Plaintiff

resides in this district, and Plaintiffs speech is being unconstitutionally restricted in

this district.
PARTIES
14.

Plaintiff Flores is an openly gay journalist and activist. Flores

advocates for equality and government reform. Flores is also committed to

principles of transparency and accountability in government, and he seeks to ensure
that the American public is informed about the governments conduct in matters
that affect civil liberties and civil rights.

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 8 of 31 PageID #: 144

15.

Defendant DOJ is a department of the executive branch of the

United States government and is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C.

552(f)(1). The DOJ is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and has possession,
custody, and control of the records to which Plaintiff has requested.
16.

Each of the U.S. Attorneys Office for the District of Columbia, the

EOUSA, and the OIP are components of the DOJ. The U.S. Attorneys Office for the
District of Columbia is one of 94 districts, which receives advise from the DOJ.
Indeed, The United States Attorneys serve as the nation's principal litigators under
the direction of the Attorney General. See Offices of the United States Attorneys :
Mission, U.S. Department of Justice (Nov. 18, 2014), http://www.justice.gov/usao/
mission. According to Miller, the EOUSA is the official record keeper for the records
maintained in all United States Attorneys offices. According to the Web site of the
OIP, the OIP is responsible for encouraging agency compliance with the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) and for ensuring that the Presidents FOIA Memorandum
and the Attorney General's FOIA Guidelines are fully implemented across the
government, adding that the OIP also manages the Department of Justice's
obligations under the FOIA. See Office of Information Policy | About the Office, U.S.
Department of Justice, available at http://www.justice.gov/oip/about-office.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Governments Prosecution of Activists
17.

The government prosecutes activists for having expressed their

First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of assembly. Activists engage in
civic activities to pressure the government for reform. In some instances, the U.S.
Attorneys Office has been reported to have engaged in vindictive prosecution,

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 9 of 31 PageID #: 145

intimidation and prosecutorial overreach, and extraordinary prosecutorial
overkill, amongst other allegations, in cases against activists.
18.

The press has described some of the U.S. Attorneys Offices

prosecutions of activists as vindictive in nature. See, e.g., Scott Wooledge, Updated:

Judge Allows Lt Dan Chois vindictive prosecution Defense, Daily Kos (Aug. 31, 2011),
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/31/1012290/-Updated-Judge-Allows-
Lt-Dan-Choi-s-vindictive-prosecution-Defense. Before the nature of the selective
prosecution of Lt. Choi could become public information, prosecutors quashed the
effort to expose the selective prosecution. See Lou Chibbaro Jr., Judge rules against
Choi in vindictive prosecution claim, Washington Blade (Oct. 17, 2011),
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/10/17/judge-rules-against-choi-in-
vindictive-prosecution-claim/.
19.

In the case against the late Internet activist Aaron Swartz, the

nature of that prosecution was portrayed in the press to be rife with intimidation
and prosecutorial overreach. See Noam Cohen, A Data Crusader, a Defendant and
Now, a Cause, N.Y. Times, Jan. 14, 2003, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/14/
technology/aaron-swartz-a-data-crusader-and-now-a-cause.html.
20.

The prosecution of PFC Chelsea Manning could lead to treating

activists, who act as whistleblowers, as traitors. This treatment has been described
as extraordinary prosecutorial overkill. See Amy Goodman & Glenn Greenwald,
Prosecutor Overreach Could Turn All Whistleblowing into Treason, Democracy Now
(March 5, 2013), http://www.democracynow.org/2013/3/5/glenn_greenwald_on_
bradley_manning_prosecutor.

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 10 of 31 PageID #: 146

21.

News reports indicated that the prosecution of activists has

imposed restrictions, burdens, and interferences with First Amendment, other

Constitutional rights, civil liberties, and other civil rights of activists. After
HIV/AIDS activists were arrested during a peaceful protest in Washington, DC, the
U.S. Attorneys Office demanded the drug-testing of activists, who were charged
with nonviolent crimes, such as civil disobedience. The demand for drug-testing of
HIV/AIDS activists was fraught with complications, because some activists may have
had a prescription for medical marijuana or may have had prescriptions for other
medications, which perhaps would have resulted in a false positive. See Trenton
Straube, U.S. Attorney Requires Drug Tests for AIDS Protesters, POZ (Feb. 2012),
http://www.poz.com/articles/DC_HIV_Marijuana_401_21944.shtml

Martin

Austermuhle, AIDS Activist Faces Trial After Use of Medical Marijuana Sinks Hopes for
Dismissal of Charges, dcist (Feb. 9, 2012), http://dcist.com/2012/02/aids_
activist_faces_trial_after_usi.php.
22.

These reports have also suggested that the prosecution of activists

has been unfair. The HIV/AIDS activists had chained themselves together inside the
office of then House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to protest, among other
issues, cuts to HIV/AIDS programs. They were arrested on federal charges. On the
same day as the HIV/AIDS activists were arrested, 41 District of Columbia voting
rights activists, including Mayor Vincent Gray, were arrested on Capitol Hill. The
voting rights activists were charged with misdemeanors by the District of Columbia
attorney general ; most of the voting rights activists, including the mayor, paid a $50
fine. Why did the U.S. Attorneys Office treated HIV/AIDS activists differently ?
See Arin Greenwood, HIV/AIDS Activists Complain Of Unfair Treatment By U.S.

10

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 11 of 31 PageID #: 147

Attorney's Office, Huffington Post (Feb. 8, 2012), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
2012/02/08/aids-activists-protest_n_1263144.html ; Brianne Carter, D.C. mayor
Vincent Gray, councilmembers arrested : Protesters plead not guilty, WJLA (May 5,
2011),

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2011/05/d-c-mayor-vincent-gray-

councilmembers-arrested-protesters-to-appear-in-court--60103.html

Debbie

Siegelbaum, AIDS activists allege discriminatory treatment following Capitol arrest,

The Hill (Feb. 8, 2011), http://thehill.com/homenews/house/209485-aids-
activists-allege-discriminatory-treatment-after-capitol-protest-arrest.
23.

Further reports raised concerns that the prosecution of activists

has been influenced with political overtones. During his tenure as a U.S. Attorney,
Patrick Fitzgerald targeted 23 activists, who were widely described as critics of U.S.
foreign policy. See Peter Wallsten, Activists cry foul over FBI probe, The Washington
Post (June 13, 2011), http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-06-13/politics/
35235946_1_activists-cry-stephanie-weiner-targets ; Kevin Gosztola, FBI Continues
to Target Activists in Chicago and Minneapolis (VIDEO), Firedoglake (Dec. 9, 2010),
http://my.firedoglake.com/kgosztola/2010/12/09/fbi-continues-to-target-
activists-in-chicago-and-minneapolis/ ; Josh Gerstein, After 1 year, FBI returns
property

to

Minnesota

anti-war

activists,

Politico

(Nov.

3,

2011),

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1111/FBI_returns_property_to_Minn
esota_antiwar_activists.html.
24.

Activist and the public-at-large are unable to determine the nature

and purpose of the prosecution of activists, because there is a lack of reliable

information about the reasons the DOJ has been prosecuting activists. Even
Congress has been left in the dark. See, e.g., Kim Zetter, Congress Demands Justice

11

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 12 of 31 PageID #: 148

Department Explain Aaron Swartz Prosecution, Wired (Jan. 29, 2013),
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/01/doj-briefing-on-aaron-swartz/ ;
Marcy Wheeler, Aaron Swartz reveals the hypocrisy of our Justice Department, Salon
(Jan. 15, 2013), http://www.salon.com/2013/01/16/aaron_swartz_reveals_the_
hypocrisy_of_our_justice_department/. And in respect of Lt. Choi, a magistrate judge
had found that there was indication that the Department of Justice was singling out
Lt. Choi for vindictively prosecution. See John Aravosis, Judge finds prima facie
evidence that US government may have vindictively prosecuted Dan Choi,
AMERICAblog (Aug. 31, 2011), http://americablog.com/2011/08/judge-finds-
prima-facie-evidence-that-us-government-may-have-vindictively-prosecuted-dan-
choi.html ; Scott Wooledge, Updated: Judge Allows Lt Dan Chois vindictive
prosecution Defense, Daily Kos (Aug. 31, 2011), http://www.dailykos.com/story/
2011/08/31/1012290/-Updated-Judge-Allows-Lt-Dan-Choi-s-vindictive-
prosecution-Defense ; and Chris Geidner, Government Files Motion to Stop "Vindictive
Prosecution" Defense in Choi Trial, Metro Weekly (Sept. 16, 2011),
http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2011/09/government-filed-motion-to-
sto.html.
The Governments Pattern and Practice of Denying FOIA Requests
25.

Contrary to each of FOIA, the Presidents FOIA Memorandum, and

the Attorney Generals FOIA Guidelines, the government has made it difficult for
FOIA Requests to be answered. See, e.g., The FOIA Project, FOIA Lawsuits Increase
During

Obama

Administration,

The

FOIA

Project

(Dec.

20,

2012),

http://foiaproject.org/2012/12/20/increase-in-foia-lawsuits-during-obama-
administration/ (citing a study by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse,

12

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 13 of 31 PageID #: 149

noting that more court complaints seeking to force the government to comply with
FOIA were filed in the first term of the administration of the President than in the
last term of the administration of former President George W. Bush, and adding that,
Partly because President Obama has, since his first few days in office, made
sweeping promises about his administrations support for open government, the
somewhat surprising increase in FOIA filingsespecially in the last two years
adds credence to the criticism of some activists about the Obama Administrations
actual commitment to this goal.) ; Erika Eichelberger, Most Transparent
Administration

Ever

Is

Still

Not,

Mother

Jones

(Feb.

7,

2013),

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/02/darrell-issa-elijah-cummings-foia-
transparency-department-of-justice (noting that filing a FOIA request and getting
information back is still a struggle). Frustration with the governments failure to
comply with each of it legal obligations under FOIA, the Presidents FOIA
Memorandum, and the Attorney Generals FOIA Guidelines forced the leadership of
the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
to send a letter the OIP to focus attention on concerns that included fees for
accessing government records, backlogs of FOIA Requests, and the misuse of
exemptions. See Darrell Issa & Elijah Cummings, Letter to Office of Information
Policy, U.S. House of Representatives (Feb. 4, 2013), http://oversight.house.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2013/02/2013-02-04-DEI-EEC-to-Pustay-re-FOIA.pdf (the Letter
to the OIP). Furthermore, a coalition of 49 groups acted in support of the Letter to
the OIP by pressing the government to honor its obligations under FOIA. See Jeff
Plungis, National Press Club asks President Obama to fulfill FOIA promises, National

13

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 14 of 31 PageID #: 150

Press Club (Feb. 25, 2013), http://www.press.org/news-multimedia/news/
national-press-club-asks-president-obama-fulfill-foia-promises.
26.

Since then, the number of court complaints seeking to force the

government to comply with FOIA has increased. See, e.g., Hadas Gold, NYT, Vice,
Mother Jones top FOIA suits, Politico (Dec. 23, 2014), http://www.politico.com/
blogs/media/2014/12/nyt-vice-mother-jones-top-foia-suits-200325.html

(noting

that the top defendant was the DOJ) ; Ted Bridis, Administration sets record for
withholding government files, The Associated Press (Mar. 18, 2015),
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ab029d7c625149348143a51ff61175c6/us-sets-new-
record-denying-censoring-government-files (noting that The government took
longer to turn over files when it provided any, said more regularly that it couldn't
find documents and refused a record number of times to turn over files quickly
that might be especially newsworthy (emphasis added), adding that in nearly 1 in 3
cases, the governments initial decisions to withhold or censor records were
improper under the lawbut only when it was challenged.).
27.

Given the governments pattern and practice of refusing to comply

with FOIA Requests until challenged, the government, in an act of bad faith, waited
until after the original Complaint was filed in this case before it released records,
and the government has not explained the rationale for having waited over two
years to answer the Request, making it impossible to know how the government
balances the First Amendment rights, other Constitutional rights, civil liberties, and
other civil rights of activists against charges that the government brings against
activists. Without this information, the public is unable to determine if the
government is intentionally targeting activists for prosecution. If the government is

14

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 15 of 31 PageID #: 151

engaged in targeting activists, then the public is also unable to make informed
judgments about why the government has targeted activists for prosecution.
28.

The government has been portrayed in the press to have been

engaged in the intentional targeting of journalists, for example, even though

journalists operate in a profession that benefits from protections from First
Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of the press. U.S. Const. amend. I.
See, e.g., Sari Horwitz, Under sweeping subpoenas, Justice Department obtained AP
phone records in leak investigation, The Washington Post, (May 13, 2013)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/under-sweeping-
subpoenas-justice-department-obtained-ap-phone-records-in-leak-
investigation/2013/05/13/11d1bb82-bc11-11e2-89c9-3be8095fe767_story.html
(noting that guidelines existed for how the DOJ treated investigations of the press,
specifically adding that the guidelines indicated that any subpoenas of records from
news organizations must be approved personally by the attorney general). Even
though the activities of journalists are protected by the First Amendment, the
government still investigated and prosecuted journalists in accordance with
guidelines that governed those prosecutions. The DOJ later updated and made
public those guidelines. See Charlie Savage, Attorney General Signs New Rules to
Limit Access to Journalists Records, The New York Times (Feb. 21, 2014),
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/22/us/attorney-general-signs-new-rules-to-
limit-access-to-journalists-records.html. However, the public does not know what
guides the DOJ in the prosecution of activists, whose civic activities are also
protected by the First Amendment.

15

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 16 of 31 PageID #: 152

The E-Mail Request
29.

On March 27, 2013, Flores submitted an electronic mail to George

seeking information that would allow Flores to update a blog post. The E-mail
Request presented three questions to George, including a request for production of a
tabulation of costs incurred by the DOJ in its prosecution of Lt. Choi :
a.

Explanation for the DOJs prosecution of activists ;

b.

Explanation for the failure by DOJ officials to refer to Lt.

Choi by his rank ; and

c.

Disclosure of the cumulative costs incurred by the DOJ to

prosecute Lt. Choi.

30.

The E-mail Request was copied to officials at DOJ components.

31.

By April 10, 2013, no response was received, so Flores sent a

follow-up electronic mail requesting a response.

32.

By April 16, 2013, no response was received, so Flores forwarded

the E-mail Request to a general public assistance electronic mail account of the DOJ,
asking for a response. The April 16, 2013, electronic mail cited the Attorney
General's FOIA Guidelines.
33.

By electronic mail dated April 17, 2013, Miller instructed Flores to

submit a FOIA request to the EOUSA.

The FOIA Request
34.

Based on Millers instruction communicated to Flores by Millers

electronic mail of April 17, 2013, Flores prepared and submitted by letter dated
April 30, 2013, a FOIA Request seeking :
a.

All records and information pertaining to the legal basis of

prosecuting activists, who engage in protests, including,
but not limited, to records and information regarding :
16

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 17 of 31 PageID #: 153

b.

(i)

what kind of activists may be targeted for

prosecution, how many activists have been
targeted for prosecution, what are the names of
such activists, and which Department of Justice
officials approved of such prosecution of activists ;

(ii)

whether the nature and purpose of prosecution of

activists may be aggressive, selective, or involve
overreach, and which Department of Justice
officials approve of such nature and purpose of
prosecution of activists ;

(iii)

limits, rules, procedures, or other guidelines that

must or should be taken into consideration before,
during, and after the prosecution of activists to
mimimise the interference with First Amendment
rights, other Constitutional rights, civil liberties,
and other civil rights of activists ;

(iv)

consideration of other circumstances, conditions,

and restrictions that form any part of the decision
to target activists for prosecution ; and, if such
considerations exist, under what circumstances,
under what conditions, and subject to what
restrictions ;

(v)

any and all agency, executive, judicial, or

congressional reports, memoranda, records, and
information, which provide any description of the
process for the determination as to whether
activists can be targeted for prosecution ; and

(vi)

whether agencies other than the Department of

Justice may target activists for prosecution, and, if
so, under what circumstances, under what
conditions, and subject to what restrictions ; and
which agency officials approve of such prosecution
of activists.

All records and information created on or after Nov. 12,

2010, pertaining to the legal basis for the arrest and/or
prosecution of Lt. Choi, including, but not limited to,
records and information regarding :
(i)

whether the prosecution of Lt. Choi was part of any

Department of Justices process to target activists ;
and
17

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 18 of 31 PageID #: 154

(ii)

c.

All records and information created on or after Nov. 12,

2010, pertaining to the legal basis for the Department of
Justice or U.S. Attorneys Office to fail to refer to Lt. Choi by
his military rank, in accordance with Army Regulation 670-
1.

d.

The total cost of the prosecution of Lt. Choi, including, but

not limited to :
(i)

the limits of the Department of Justices

prosecution to mimimise the interference with
First Amendment, other Constitutional rights, civil
liberties, and other civil rights of Lt. Choi.

any and all records and information created on or

after Nov. 12, 2010, pertaining to the cost of
arresting and/or prosecuting Lt. Choi, including,
but not limited to, records and information
regarding :
(A)

any and all agency, executive, judicial, or

congressional
reports,
memoranda,
records, and information, which indicate,
calculate, or analyze the budged and actual
cost of the prosecution of Lt. Choi ;

(B)

any and all records of the cost of staff

costs, staff benefits, travel, transcripts,
accommodations, meals, non-attorney
investigation costs, research costs, other
investigation costs, and all other costs on
the prosecution of Lt. Choi ;

(C)

any and all records of the costs of fact and

expert witnesses in connection with the
prosecution of Lt. Choi ;

(D)

any and all records of assistance provided

by other law enforcement agencies in
connection with the prosecution of Lt.
Choi ; and

(E)

any and all records of hours worked, paid

or unpaid overtime hours, and other
information about personnel hours
worked in connection with the
prosecution of Lt. Choi.
18

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 19 of 31 PageID #: 155

35.

The Request directed the DOJ to search for responsive records. In

the E-mail Request, Flores specifically asked whether there was another process by
which Flores could obtain the information he sought, and, if so, Flores requested to
be informed by the U.S. Attorneys Office of such process. This was recounted on
Page 1 of the Request.
36.

Plaintiff sought expedited processing of the Request on the grounds

that there is a compelling need for these records, because the information
requested is urgently needed by Flores, who is primarily engaged, as a journalist
and activist, in disseminating information to inform the public about the
governments conduct. See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(E) ; 22 C.F.R. 171.12(b) ; 28 C.F.R.
16.5(d) ; 32 C.F.R. 286.4(d)(3) ; 32 C.F.R. 1900.34(c).
37.

Plaintiff sought a waiver of search, review, and reproduction fees

on the grounds that disclosure of the requested records is in the public interest,
because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of operations
or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the
requester. See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(iii) ; 22 C.F.R. 171.17(a) ; see also 28 C.F.R.
16.11(k)(1) ; 32 C.F.R. 286.28(d) ; 32 C.F.R. 1900.13(b)(2).
38.

Plaintiff also sought a waiver of search and review fees on the

grounds that Flores qualifies as a representative of the news media and that the
records are not sought for commercial use. See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A)(ii); 28 C.F.R.
16.11(d).

19

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 20 of 31 PageID #: 156

The U.S. Attorneys Offices Response to the E-Mail Request
39.

By electronic mail dated April 17, 2013, Miller acknowledged

receipt of the chain of electronic mails that included the E-Mail Request, instructing
Flores to submit the Request to the EOUSA.
40.

The twenty-day statutory limit for the DOJ to respond to Plaintiffs

Request has elapsed. See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6).

41.

In spite of the urgent public interest surrounding the requested

documents, after more than six months had passed since Plaintiff filed his Request,
the U.S. Attorneys Office, in another act of bad faith, never released responsive
records, prompting Plaintiff to engage Counsel.
42.

Plaintiff challenges the responses and nonresponses by the U.S.

Attorneys Office on its own behalf and on behalf of the DOJ components.
43.

For over two years, the U.S. Attorneys Office neither released

responsive records nor explained its failure to do so, constituting an act of bad faith.
It was only after Plaintiff filed the original Complaint in this case that the EOUSA
provided, on behalf of the U.S. Attorneys Office for the District of Columbia, the
incomplete and nonresponsive FOIA Response more completely described in
Paragraph 8. Plaintiff alleges bad faith conduct on the part of the EOUSA in
deliberately preparing an incomplete FOIA Response, one that intentionally omitted
responsive records, and, by virtue of having produced a partial copy of the pleadings
in the governments case against Lt. Choi, in creating a red herring to intentionally
create confusion surrounding the records that are truly responsive to the Request.

20

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 21 of 31 PageID #: 157

The Executive Office for United States Attorneys
44.

During two telephone calls on June 5, 2013, Sanjay Sola, a paralegal

at the EOUSA (Sola), informed Flores that the Request had been received and been
assigned the request number : 13-1506, first adding that Vinay Jolly would be
handling the expedited processing request, before later correcting himself, saying
that Sonya Whitaker (Whitaker) would, instead, handle the expedited request
aspect of the Request. Sola transferred Flores to Whitakers voicemail, whereupon
Flores left his cellular telephone number for Whitaker to use to inform Flores if the
request for expedited processing would be approved for the Request.
45.

On June 18, 2013, Flores again spoke with Sola during a telephone

call, and, once again, Sola transferred Flores to Whitakers voicemail, whereupon
Flores left another voicemail message for Whitaker about the Request.
46.

In subsequent attempts to reach Sola by telephone, Flores spoke

with Sola on July 9, 2013, whereupon Sola informed Flores that the request for a fee
waiver was declined. Sola told Flores that the person making the determination just
checks a box. Sola added that the computer showed him that the Request was not a
matter of widespread and exceptional interest. Sola said that Flores may receive a
letter to this effect ; however, Flores never received such a letter. Furthermore,
Flores asked Sola how should Flores go about to appeal the determination that
denied the fee waiver, and Sola told Flores that Sola did not have that information.
Additionally, Sola told Flores that the Request was under search, and Flores asked
Sola if Flores should wait to see how many records would be produced before
addressing the issue of fees. Sola said that the policy of the U.S. Attorneys Office is
to not charge for the first 100 pages, generally, but, after 100 pages, the charge is ten

21

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 22 of 31 PageID #: 158

cents per page, adding that the next step would be for Flores to receive an invoice,
which would then inform Flores how many records were found. The invoice would
also inform Flores how much Flores would have to pay. Flores never received such
an invoice.
47.

In subsequent attempts to reach Sola by telephone, Flores spoke

with Sola on October 17, 2013, whereupon Flores told Sola that Flores had never
received any written confirmation that the DOJ had received the Request. Sola then
asked Flores if Flores had received the notification from OPA that the request for
expedited processing had been declined, to which Flores said that Flores had not.
Sola promised to send the notification to Flores by electronic mail. Flores never
received anything by electronic mail. Sola added that since the expedited processing
request had been declined, the Request was going through normal processing.
Flores asked why was the expedited processing request declined when one of the
activists, who was the principal subject of the Request, namely, Lt. Choi, was a
newsworthy individual. Sola told Flores that he had no information, promising
Flores that, I need to get more information. Furthermore, Flores asked Sola if
there was anybody else with whom Flores could speak, to which Sola replied that
Solas role in respect of FOIA requests was to process searches after the search
had been completed, adding that Sola would find out from the intake staff what
was happening with the Request, before further adding that, After that, well have
more answers for you. Finally, Sola said that the FOIA Request would have to go to
the District for the search to be conducted, adding that the DOJ only has one person
in the District of Columbia, making the process very slow, before promising to get
more information on behalf of Flores, given that October 17, 2013, had been the first

22

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 23 of 31 PageID #: 159

day back for employees in the office since the conclusion of the government
shutdown. Sola concluded the call by saying that Sola would call Flores in the
following week. Flores never received such a follow-up call. Plaintiff alleges the
DOJs conduct in delaying, thwarting, or failing to process the Request constitutes
acts of bad faith.
48.

Approximately three weeks later, on November 7, 2013, Flores

retained Counsel and attempted no more communication with Sola at the EOUSA.
49.

When no responsive records were produced, Flores approached the

office of his representative in the U.S. Congress, the Hon. U.S. Representative Joseph
Crowley (Crowley), and asked that the office of Crowley write a letter to the
EOUSA on Flores behalf, asking that the EOUSA answer the Request. On February
10, 2014, the office of Crowley sent to the EOUSA such a letter signed by Crowley.
Plaintiff further alleges that the EOUSAs failure to answer the letter sent by
Crowley, who is a ranking member of the U.S. House of Representatives, constitutes
an act of bad faith and demonstrates the DOJs over-all disregard for attempts by
government leaders to pressure the agency to comply with FOIA.
50.

For over two years, the EOUSA neither released responsive records

nor explained its failure to do so, constituting an act of bad faith. It was only after
Plaintiff filed the original Complaint in this case that the EOUSA provided, on behalf
of the U.S. Attorneys Office for the District of Columbia, the incomplete and
nonresponsive FOIA Response more completely described in Paragraph 8. Plaintiff
alleges that the delays and the subsequent deliberate omissions of responsive
records constitute acts of bad faith, and the totality of the EOUSAs disregard for
FOIA constitutes an act of bad faith made with impunity.

23

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 24 of 31 PageID #: 160

The Office of Information Policy
51.

By letter dated December 6, 2013, Counsel filed the Appeal with the

OIP, informing the OIP that the failure by the DOJ to respond to the Request
constitutes a denial of the Request and Mr. Flores is deemed to have exhausted his
administrative remedies, adding that, the DOJ has done nothing at all to respond to
the Request other than to tell Mr. Flores that, due to the agencys own internal
limitations on resources and staff, it is having difficulty processing the numerous
FOIA requests that the DOJ receives, further adding that, Given the DOJs conduct
in connection with the Request, we are left with the impression that the DOJ is
taking an uncooperative stance, is not exercising due diligence in responding to the
Request, or both, before urging the DOJ to be mindful of the Attorney Generals
admonition that [o]pen government requires agencies to work proactively and
respond to requests promptly When information not previously disclosed is
requested, agencies should make it a priority to respond in a timely manner. Timely
disclosure of information is an essential component of transparency. Long delays
should not be viewed as an inevitable and insurmountable consequence of high
demand, and finally concluding by demanding a response within 20 business days.
52.

By letter dated May 20, 2014, the OIP corresponded with Counsel,

informing Counsel that the OIP was remanding the Request for responsive records,
adding that, if EOUSA locates releasable records, it will be send them to you
directly, subject to any applicable fees.
53.

For over two years, the OIP neither released responsive records nor

explained its failure to do so, constituting an act of bad faith. It was only after
Plaintiff filed the original Complaint in this case that the EOUSA provided, on behalf

24

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 25 of 31 PageID #: 161

of the U.S. Attorneys Office for the District of Columbia but without mention or
regard to the OIP, the incomplete and nonresponsive FOIA Response more
completely described in Paragraph 8. Plaintiff alleges bad faith on behalf of the OIP
for deliberately not being in compliance with FOIA.
The Department of Justice
54.

On Sept. 17, 2014, Flores protested outside New York University

School of Law before Holder was set to deliver a speech. Amongst the protest signs
that Flores carried was one that read, ERIC HOLDER : ANSWER FOIA REQUEST
ABOUT GOVT PROSECUTION OF ACTIVISTS INCL. LT. DANIEL CHOI. When Holder
arrived, Flores held up this protest sign and said, as Holder looked in the direction of
Flores, Attorney General Holder, answer my FOIA request. Answer my FOIA
request. See Louis Flores, Twitter (Sept. 17, 2014, 12:34 PM),
https://twitter.com/maslowsneeds/status/512278432131350528.
55.

Again on Sept. 23, 2014, Flores protested outside New York

University School of Law, where Holder was appearing, to demand that the DOJ
answer the Request. Again, Flores carried the same sign, which read, ERIC HOLDER
: ANSWER FOIA REQUEST ABOUT GOVT PROSECUTION OF ACTIVISTS INCL. LT.
DANIEL CHOI. See Louis Flores, Twitter (Sept. 23 2014, 1:07 PM),
https://twitter.com/maslowsneeds/status/514460998418579456.
56.

Flores even launched a social media campaign to challenge the

DOJs pattern and practice that systematically refused to answer the Request. See,
e.g., Louis Flores, Twitter (Oct. 15, 2013, 4:42 PM EST), https://twitter.com/
maslowsneeds/status/390216209636925440 (attaching a link to a YouTube video,
which had been uploaded on Oct. 15, 2013, that explored whether individuals

25

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 26 of 31 PageID #: 162

outside the DOJ had a role in ordering the arrest of Lt. Choi for his activism and
questioned whether the DOJ was targeting for vindictive prosecution activists, who
may have been engaged in pressure politics against the President in order to bring
about social change) ; Louis Flores, Twitter (Feb. 25, 2014, 4:24 PM EST),
https://twitter.com/maslowsneeds/status/438424392977375232 (attaching a link
to another YouTube video, which had been uploaded on Dec. 4, 2013, noting that
speech critical of government, for example, political speech, is a freedom guaranteed
as a protection in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, adding that when
the DOJ does not honor FOIA requests, this failure acts to curtail free speech,
because the failure denies citizens information about the governments conduct,
consequently preventing citizens from meaningfully forming informed speech, from
meaningfully assembling to discuss the governments conduct, and to petition their
government for a redress of grievances) ; and Louis Flores, Twitter (Sept. 25, 2014,
11:15 AM EST), https://twitter.com/maslowsneeds/status/515157736821358592
(noting the Sept. 17, 2014, protest against Holder).
57.

For over two years, the DOJ neither released responsive records

nor explained its failure to do so, constituting an act of bad faith. It was only after
Plaintiff filed the original Complaint in this case that the EOUSA provided, on behalf
of the U.S. Attorneys Office for the District of Columbia but without mention or
regard to the DOJ, the incomplete and nonresponsive FOIA Response more
completely described in Paragraph 8. Plaintiff alleges bad faith on behalf of the DOJ
for deliberately not being in compliance with FOIA.
58.

Plaintiffs Request seeks records about how the DOJ balances First

Amendment rights, other Constitutional rights, civil liberties, and other civil rights

26

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 27 of 31 PageID #: 163

of activists against charges that the DOJ brings against activists. As a journalist,
Plaintiff seeks these records in order to inform the public. Demonstrating the
danger to the First Amendment, the government precludes the full exercise of
complete speech by restricting the public to engage in speech that lacks information
in the records sought by the Request filed by Plaintiff under FOIA.
59.

In response to Defendants restrictions on speech, Plaintiff

produced two YouTube videos to inform the public about the governments refusal
to answer the Request. See, e.g., LGBTcivilRIRGHTS, Why won't DOJ answer FOIA
Request about Lt. Dan Choi ?, YouTube (Oct. 15, 2013), https://youtu.be/
JfqJ8FncI9Q ; astoria25, Free Speech Implications of DOJ Denying FOIA Request on Lt.
Daniel Choi, YouTube (Dec. 4, 2013), https://youtu.be/axxpXab1ZVQ ; Louis Flores,
Protest against Eric Holder at NYU re: FOIA request about government prosecution of
activists, YouTube (Sept. 17, 2014), https://youtu.be/3HQ--oRpmK8.
60.

The ability to engage in complete speech concerning the nature

and extent of the governments conduct is critical to each of Plaintiff, readers of

Plaintiffs Web sites, the public, and activists, who are not party to the Request.
61.

(a). As a consequence of the governments refusal to either release

responsive records or to explain its failure to do so, the public cannot fully and
completely speak ; meaningfully assemble with other journalists, citizens, or
activists ; and discuss any petition to the government for a redress of grievances.
Since the government is intruding on free speech and on the freedom of the press,
the government is violating the First Amendment with no explanation for either its
intrusion or its violation, respectively. (b). Before answering the Request, the
government misrepresented before this Court that the government had no copy of

27

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 28 of 31 PageID #: 164

the Request, even though the government admitted in its Answer to the original
Complaint in this case that the government had received e-mail from Plaintiff to
which Plaintiff had attached an electronic copy of the Request. (c). Meanwhile, the
government spent over two years simply refusing to answer the Request in a
particularly egregious act of bad faith. (d). When the government did answer the
Request, the government did so by falsely claiming that no responsive records could
be found, in spite of the fact that the FOIA Response included references to the
existence of such responsive documents. (e). Therefore, Plaintiff claims that the
DOJ components have not complied with FOIA, the Presidents FOIA Memorandum,
and the Attorney Generals FOIA Guidelines. (f) Finally, the DOJ components willful
disregard for FOIA, its misrepresentation before this Court, and its refusal to
provide documents responsive to the Request constitute acts of bad faith and an
improper withholding of agency records, particularly in light of : (i) the Appeal
filed with the OIP, informing the OIP that the government had been deemed to have
constructively denied Plaintiffs FOIA Request and concluding, in part, that Plaintiff
had exhausted his administrative remedies and (ii) the subsequent FOIA Response,
which referenced the kinds of records Plaintiff had been seeking but were denied
Plaintiff.
CAUSES OF ACTION
62.

Defendants failure to make a reasonable effort to search for

records sought by the Request violates FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3), and Defendants
corresponding regulations.

28

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 29 of 31 PageID #: 165

63.

Defendants failure to promptly make available the records sought

by the Request violates FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(A), and Defendants

corresponding regulations.
64.

Defendants failure to process Plaintiffs request expeditiously and

as soon as practicable violates FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(E), and Defendants

corresponding regulations.
65.

Defendants failure to release responsive records or explain its

failure to do so violates the rights of Plaintiff, who is a journalist, under the First
Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. I, to be able to carry out his function to inform the
public about the governments conduct.
66.

Defendants failure to release responsive records or explain its

failure to do so violates the rights of Plaintiff, activists, and citizens under the First
Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. I, to be informed of the governments conduct in
order to create and engage in complete and informed speech, to meaningfully
assemble with other citizens to discuss the governments conduct, and to be able to
petition their government for a redress of grievances, if they so choose.
67.

Defendants failure to grant Plaintiffs request for a waiver of

search, review, and duplication fees violates FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4), (a)(6), and
Defendants corresponding regulations.
68.

Defendant's failure to grant Plaintiffs request for a limitation of

fees violates FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4), (a)(6), and Defendant's corresponding

regulations.
REQUESTED RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request that this Court:

29

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 30 of 31 PageID #: 166

A.

Order Defendant and its components the U.S. Attorneys Office for
the District of Columbia, the Executive Office for United States
Attorneys, and the Office of Information Policy to immediately
process the Request and to release any responsive records not
properly withholdable under FOIA ;

B.

Enjoin Defendant and its components from charging Plaintiff

search, review, or duplication fees for the processing of the
Request ;

C.

Award Plaintiff their costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred

in this action ;

D.

Grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper ; and

E.

Given the demonstrations of bad faith by Defendant and to verify

that the DOJ components release all responsive records, appoint a
monitor to conduct or verify the search for responsive records,
order the conduct of in camera reviews of records, and/or impose
sanctions and penalties, including fines, against the Defendant to
compel compliance with FOIA and to deter each of future acts of
bad faith and future violations of FOIA.

Dated : Jackson Heights, New York

September 23, 2015

Respectfully submitted,

___________________________________
Louis Flores
34-21 77th Street, Apt. 406
Jackson Heights, NY 11372
Phone : (646) 400-1168
louisflores@louisflores.com

30

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 15 Filed 09/23/15 Page 31 of 31 PageID #: 167

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


LOUIS FLORES,




Plaintiff,
15-CV-2627 (JG)(RLM)


v.
AFFIRMATION

OF SERVICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE,




Defendant.





I, LOUIS FLORES, declare under penalty of perjury that I have served a copy of
the attached AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF upon RUKHSANAH L.
SINGH, whose address is : c/o United States Attorneys Office, Eastern District of New
York, 271 Cadman Plaza East, 7th Floor, Brooklyn, New York 11201 by ELECTRONIC
MAIL DELIVERY to : rukhsanah.singh@usdoj.gov.

Dated : Jackson Heights, New York

September 23, 2015

Louis Flores
34-21 77th Street, Apt. 406
Jackson Heights, New York 11372
Phone : (646) 400-1168
louisflores@louisflores.com

31