18 January, 2024 UPDATE: Ruling in the JFK Records Lawsuit

[Following are sections I and V of District Judge Richard Seeborg’s ruling in Case No. 22-cv-06176-RS: MARY FERRELL FOUNDATION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendants. Download the full ruling as a .pdf file by clicking MF v. Biden order 1-18-24]

I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs the Mary Ferrell Foundation, Inc. (“MFF”), Josiah Thompson, and Gary Aguilar bring this action for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and a writ of mandamus against Defendants President Joseph R. Biden and the National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”). Plaintiffs argue that Defendants failed to fulfill their ministerial duties as required by the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (“JFK Act”). In their Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), Plaintiffs aver three claims against NARA: (1) NARA’s actions are arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to the JFK Act in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”); (2) an APA/mandamus claim seeking to compel NARA to take certain actions; and (3) declaratory judgment that NARA’s actions violate the Federal Records Act (“FRA”). Plaintiffs have also filed several motions for preliminary injunctions or mandamus: the first, to set aside two of President Biden’s postponement memoranda and for NARA to conduct a re-review of the remaining redacted assassination records under Section 3(10) of the JFK Act and Plaintiffs’ other preferred standards; the second, to order NARA to collect all assassination records Case 3:22-cv-06176-RS Document 107 Filed 01/18/24 Page 1 of 11

…
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS TAC, MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS
CASE NO. 22-cv-06176-RS

United States District Court
Northern District of California
under Section 12(b); and third, to order NARA publicly to disclose legislative records pursuant to the JFK Act. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the TAC.1 For the reasons discussed below, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction are denied.

…

V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted as to Claim 1. Defendants’ motion is also granted as to Claim 2, except to the portions of Claim 2 concerning the legislative records and NARA’s maintenance of the identification aids. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied as to Claim 3, except as to the portions regarding the “missing” records and NARA’s duty to complete outstanding record searches. Defendant President Biden, who is named as a defendant and in the caption of the TAC, is also dismissed as Plaintiffs have failed to aver any claims against him and the July 14, 2023 Order already dismissed him without leave to amend. Plaintiffs have been afforded multiple opportunities to amend and, except for the surviving claims, have failed to aver claims with cognizable legal theories, so further leave to amend their complaint is not warranted. Plaintiffs’ various motions for injunctive relief are also denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2024

______________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
Chief United States District Judge

* * * * *