Patrick James Campbell, Appellant, v. Alana Johnson, et al, 966 F.2d 701 (D.C. Cir. 1992)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - 966 F.2d 701 (D.C. Cir. 1992) May 8, 1992. Rehearing and Rehearing En BancDenied July 3, 1992

Before WALD, D.H. GINSBURG and SENTELLE, Circuit Judges.



Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the opposition thereto, and the reply, and the response to the court's November 1, 1991 order to show cause, it is

ORDERED that the order to show cause be discharged. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to justify summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam); Walker v. Washington, 627 F.2d 541, 545 (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 994 (1980). The appellant did not file his Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") requests in accordance with agency regulations. Specifically, he declined to provide a firm agreement to pay for, or request a reduction or waiver of, search and duplication fees. See 31 C.F.R. § 1.5(c) (7). As the district court held, the administrative process was properly suspended pending compliance, and no appeal rights therefore attached. See Irons v. FBI, 571 F. Supp. 1241, 1243 (D. Mass. 1983); Lykins v. United States Dept. of Justice, No. 82-1640, slip op., reported at 3 GDS p 83,092, at 83,637 (D.D.C. 1983). Accordingly, appellant has not exhausted his administrative remedies. Lykins, 3 GDS at 83,637. See also Oglesby v. United States Dept. of Army, 920 F.2d 57, 66 (D.C. Cir. 1990). Appellant's claims that he is exempt from the exhaustion requirement under the circumstances presented are without merit.

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C. Cir. Rule 15.