Genous v. Department of Veteran Affairs

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 3/19/2014. Mailed notice(mgh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

JOSEPH C. GENOUS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14 C 1902

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Joseph Genous ("Genous") has tendered a self-prepared one-page document that he
captions a Complaint, seeking to charge the Department of Veteran Affairs ("Department") with
"totally, & illegally defying [his] Freedom of Information Act request that extended since the
year '1976' with my previous Complaint 'Case Number 06 C 4749.'" Genous has accompanied
that document with two forms provided by the Clerk's Office: an In Forma Pauperis Application
("Application") and a Motion for Attorney Representation ("Motion").
But quite apart from the difficulties in understanding that stem from the manner in which
Genous has framed his claim of wrongful treatment by Department, two documents that he has
attached to his one-page statement doom his current lawsuit:
1.

Department's letter of November 22, 2013, which was triggered by an
earlier letter that he had addressed to President Barack Obama, states that
Department's records show that it has previously complied with no fewer
than four separate FOIA requests from Genous by repeatedly sending him
copies of his file.

2.

About a year ago (on March 8, 2013) Department wrote Genous a letter
that (1) acknowledged its receipt of his request for a copy of the 1976
Rating Decision that he now seeks through this lawsuit and (2) advised
him that all such requests are processed in the order of their receipt and
that the then-current heavy volume prevented it from projecting a time
frame for his response. It added:
Be assured we are working requests of all types as
expeditiously as possible and are exploring every
avenue to accelerate the process.
That letter concluded by inviting Genous to call Department's toll-free
number or to send another inquiry in at least 90 to 120 days.

Genous says nothing about any such further followup on his part, instead apparently
expecting this Court to do that for him. That is not the appropriate judicial function where (as
here) a plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies. Hence both the Complaint and
this action are dismissed without prejudice, and both the Application and the Motion (which is
defective in any event) are denied as moot.

__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: March 19, 2014

-2-