J OSEPH POETT,

Plaintiff,
v. UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, e t al

. , De fe nd ants
. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

Civil No. 07-1374 (CKK )

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION (January 18, 2010) On September

29, 2009, this Court denied without prejudice the D efe ndants’ [24] and Plaintiff’s [25] Cross-Motions for Summary J udg ment and re manded this ca se to Def endants for further explanation of the dec ision to deny Plaintiff acc ess to selec t ag ents and toxi ns within the
course of his work a s a che mist, consist ent with the Court’s Memora ndum Opinion. Therea fter, on Dec ember

18, 2009, Def

endants filed a

[34] Notice of

FB I ’s Fina l Decision, advising the Court that the FB Ihad complete d its review on r emand a nd had tra nsmitt ed its decision to the DSAT for a

final dete rmination on Dec ember 16, 2009. Specifica lly , the FB Inotified DSAT that it no longer

rea sonably

suspects Plaintiff of knowinginvolvement with an org anization that
e ng a g e s in

do me sti c or

int e rn a tio na l te rr or ism

or wi th a ny oth e r o rg anizatio n th a t e ng a g e s in intentional crimes of violenc e and that Plainti ff is now e ligible f or ac cess to sele ct ag ents or tox ins. Th e re a ft e r, on

De c e mbe r 2 2, 20 09 , th is C ourt iss ue d a Min ute Or de r o bs e rv ingthat, i n light of the Notice of

FB I ’s Fina l Decision, “it [] appea rs that Plaintiff has now re ceive d the re lief reque sted in this lawsuit and that this case may be dismissed.” The Court f urther or dere d that2

“ [i]f Pl a int if

f d isa g re e s” wi th t

he Court ’s c on c lus ion

tha t th is c a se may

be dis mis se d, “ he mus t file a notice indicating why he does not be lieve dismissal is now warra nted by no later tha

n J anuar y 15, 2010. I f Plaintiff does not timely file any such notice, the Court shall assume that Plaintiff ag ree s that this case may be dismissed and shall promptly dismiss the above -ca

ptioned matter.” 12/22/09 Min. Order. Plaintiff did not file any

such notice on January

15, 2010, nor has he otherwise indica ted to the Court that he believe s this case may not be dismissed in li g ht of the F BI ’s Fina l Decision. Although Plaintiff a

nd Def endants filed a

[35] J oint St atus Report on January 15, 2010, that
re po rt a dv ise d th e Cou

rt on ly that a dis pu te re ma ins be tw e e n th e pa rt ie s a s to wh e the r P la int if f i s entitled to attorney s’ fe es in this matter and c ontained no indication by Plaintiff that he opposed dismiss al of this case . Acc ording ly , as Plaintiff has not indicated to the Court that he “does not be lie ve dis mis sa l is no w w arr ante d, ” a s w a s r e qu ir e d b y the Court ’s De c e mbe r 2 2, 20 09 Min ute Or de r, the Court

“ sh a ll a ssume that Pla int if f a g re e s th a t th is c a se may be dis mis se d a

nd sh a ll promptly dismiss the above -ca

ptioned matter.” 12/22/09 Min. Order. Finally , Plaintiff has indicated that he intends to seek attorney s’ fe es in this action and reque sts that a briefingschedule be set for the filing of a motion for attorney s’ fe es and c osts. See J t. Status. R ep., Doc ket No. [35] . Pursuant to the parties’ sug g ested brie fing schedule , Plaintiff shall file his Motion for Attorney s’ Fe es by no later tha

n F ebruary 18, 2010 . Plaintiff’s motion mus t provide spec ific leg al authority for his appa

rent position that he is entitled to an
awa rd of attorney s’ fe es and c osts in thi s action broug ht pursuant to the Administrative Procedur es Ac t, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (“A DA”) . Def endants’ O pposition t o Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorne y s’ Fe es shall be due by no later tha

n Marc h 22, 2010 , an d

P l a i n t i f f ’ s R e p l y, i f

a n y,3

shall be due by

no later tha

n April 12, 2010 . A n a

pp ro pr ia te Or de r a c c omp anie s th is Memorandum Opinion. Date: January

18, 2010 / s / C O LLEE N K O LLA R -K O T E LLY U n ite d S ta te s D is tric t J u d ge