Bolin v. The National Archives and Records Administration

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: August 22, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00043
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 STEPHEN BOLIN, Case No. 3:25-CV-00043-CLB

5 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND 6 v. DEFENDANT’S COUNTER-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 7 NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION, [ECF Nos. 11, 13] 8 Defendant. 9 10 Plaintiff Stephen J. Bolin (“Bolin”) filed this action under the Freedom of Information 11 Act (“FOIA”) against Defendant National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”) 12 seeking a declaratory judgment that NARA violated FOIA by failing to proactively disclose 13 records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (“JFK Collection”). 14 (ECF No. 1-1.) In his complaint, Bolin explicitly requested the Court declare NARA’s 15 “failure to digitize and publish the JFK Collection violates FOIA’s proactive disclosure 16 requirements” and order NARA to “digitize and publish the JFK Collection in its FOIA 17 electronic reading room within a reasonable time frame.” (Id. at 6.) However, shortly after 18 the filing of this lawsuit, President Trump issued Executive Order 14,176, which required 19 the declassification of the JFK Collection in its entirety. (ECF No. 13-2 at 4.) As such, any 20 documents in the JFK Collection previously withheld from public view have now been 21 made publicly available. Consistent with the Executive Order, NARA has been 22 systematically working to digitize the full JFK Collection and make it publicly available 23 online, which according to NARA, would be completed in August 2025. (Id. at 4-5.) 24 Currently pending before the Court is Bolin’s motion for summary judgment, (ECF 25 No. 11),1 and NARA’s counter motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 13.)2 In his 26

1 Defendants responded, (ECF No. 12). However, Plaintiff did not file a reply. 27

2 Plaintiff filed a response and an amended response to Defendant’s motion, (ECF 1 motion, Bolin acknowledges that this lawsuit is now “practically moot” because of the entry 2 of Executive Order 14,176, which has resulted in the full release and digitization of the 3 JFK Collection. (ECF No. 11 at 2.) Despite acknowledging this fact, Plaintiff requests that 4 the Court enter summary judgment in his favor by granting him declaratory relief indicating 5 NARA’s “pre-Executive Order conduct violated FOIA’s mandate that agencies proactively 6 disclosure ‘frequently requested’ records under 5 U.S.C. § 522(a)(2)(D).” (Id.) 7 NARA appears to agree the case is now moot but argues summary judgment 8 should be entered on its behalf because: (1) Plaintiff failed to show that NARA violated 9 the “reading room” requirement of FOIA; and (2) there is no basis to provide the 10 declaratory relief requested under the circumstances. (ECF Nos. 12, 13 at 2-3.) 11 The Court finds that this case is now moot based on Executive Order 14,176, which 12 both parties concede in their respective filings. The Court therefore does not consider the 13 merits-based arguments for and against summary judgment raised in the parties’ motions. 14 Article III, § 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that the federal courts may only 15 adjudicate “Cases” and “Controversies”. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 16 559 (1992); Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 199 (1988). By Article III, federal courts 17 are denied the power to “to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in 18 the case before them.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971). The jurisdiction 19 of a federal court is properly invoked only where litigants have suffered or are “threatened 20 with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable 21 judicial decision.” Lewis v. Cont'l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990); North Carolina, 22 404 U.S. at 246 (explaining also that courts are not empowered as a matter of jurisdiction 23 to decide moot questions). That there must be a case or controversy for the exercise of 24 jurisdiction “subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate.” 25 Id. “[I]t is not enough that a dispute was very much alive when suit was filed ... [t]he parties 26 must continue to have a ‘personal stake in the outcome’ of the lawsuit.” Id. at 477–78 27 (internal quotations and citations omitted). 1 controversy has terminated, reasonable caution is needed to be sure that mooted litigation is not pressed forward, and unnecessary judicial pronouncements on even 3 constitutional issues obtained.” /d. at 480. A case is moot where there remains no present controversy for which effective relief can be granted. E.g., W. Coast Seafood Processors 5 | Ass'nv. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 643 F.3d 701, 704 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted); 6 | see also Siskiyou Reg'l Educ. Project v. U.S. Forest Serv., 565 F.3d 545 (9th Cir. 2009) 7 | (internal quotation and citations omitted) (“A case becomes moot whenever it loses its 8 | character as a present, live controversy of the kind that must exist if we are to avoid 9 | advisory opinions on abstract propositions of law. The question is not whether the precise relief sought at the time ... [the case] was filed is still available. The question is whether there can be any effective relief.”) 12 Both Bolin and NARA concede that, based on Executive Order 14,176, and the release and digitization of the JFK Collection, this case is now moot. The Court agrees. 14| Based on the undisputed evidence presented to the Court, the entire JFK Collection is now publicly available and digitized. Accordingly, the controversy at issue in Bolin’s 16 | complaint has now terminated and there is no present controversy for which this Court cangrant any relief. Therefore, this case is now moot, and it must be dismissed for a lack 18 | of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court dismisses this case and denies both Bolin’s motion 19 | forsummary judgment, (ECF No. 11), and NARA’s counter-motion for summary judgment 20| as moot. (ECF No. 13.) 21 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is dismissed as moot. The Court therefore does not consider the merits of Plaintiff's claims. 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pending motions for summary judgment, (ECF Nos. 11, 13) are moot and denied accordingly. 25 The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this order 26 | and close this case. 27 DATED: August 22, 2025 28 UNITED STATES‘\MAGISTRATE JUDGE