Roland v. DOJ, No. 24-09617, 2025 WL 2108733 (N.D. Ill. July 28, 2025) (Perry, J.)

Roland v. DOJ, No. 24-09617, 2025 WL 2108733 (N.D. Ill. July 28, 2025) (Perry, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning plaintiff

Disposition:  Dismissing plaintiff’s complaint

• Litigation Considerations, Mootness and Other Grounds for Dismissal:  The court relates that “Plaintiff alleges that the FBI took 102 days to respond, and CRM took 112 days to respond to his FOIA request.”  “That said, Plaintiff acknowledges that both the FBI and CRM did respond.”  “Therefore, [the court finds that] Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief is moot, and Count I and Count III are dismissed.”
• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  “Assessing Plaintiff’s allegations in support of Counts II, IV, and V [regarding the adequacy of defendant’s search], the Court finds that dismissal is appropriate because Plaintiff does not allege claims that are facially plausible.”  “Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants must have documents about him because Defendants are intercepting his communications and stalking him, unnamed whistleblowers have told Plaintiff that he is under electronic surveillance and ‘left business cards and signed a petition to stop the unlawful surveillance while leaving their emails for deposition purposes,’ and Plaintiff has ‘captured demonstrative video evidence of his interaction with [a] Television commentator as if he were on a Zoom conference.’”  “These are the types of ‘fantastic or delusional scenarios’ that the Court finds patently implausible, and which warrant dismissal.”