by willychichi » Mon Jun 08, 2015 2:27 pm
More on the request and denial
PETRUCELLI v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Civil Action No. 11-1780 (RBW).
JOHN A. PETRUCELLI, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant.
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
May 26, 2015.
JOHN A. PETRUCELLI, Plaintiff, represented by Paul David Wolf.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant, represented by Claire M. Whitaker, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
REGGIE B. WALTON, District Judge.
The plaintiff, a federal prisoner, brought this action under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), see 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2006), against the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ"), demanding the release of records maintained by the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), the Executive Office for United States Attorneys ("EOUSA"), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). In an earlier opinion that granted in part and denied in part the most recent motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, the Court concluded that: (1) the BOP conducted reasonable searches for records responsive to the plaintiff's FOIA requests; (2) the BOP properly withheld information under FOIA Exemptions 6, 7(C) and 7(F); (3) the EOUSA and the FBI conducted reasonable searches for records responsive to the plaintiff's FOIA requests; (4) the EOUSA and the FBI properly withheld information under FOIA Exemptions 3, 5 and 7(C); and (5) that the relevant records were compiled for law enforcement purposes within the scope of FOIA Exemption 7. See Petrucelli v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, ___, 2014 WL 2919285 (D.D.C. June 27, 2014). In those respects, the defendant's most recent prior motion was granted. Id. at *20. The motion was denied in part because the "EOUSA failed to justify its decisions to withhold information under FOIA Exemptions 7(D) . . . and 7(F), and because the FBI failed to adequately justify its decisions [to withhold information] under FOIA Exemptions 7(D) . . . and 7(E). . . ." Id. This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e), ECF No. 74, and the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, ECF Nos. 78, 80. For the reasons discussed below, the defendant's motion for summary judgment will again be granted in part and denied in part, and the plaintiff's motions will be denied.
Read More:
http://leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%20 ... %20JUSTICE
Some background on the original charges
In the early morning of June 20, 1995, Tanglewood Boy member Darin Mazzarella was shot by Michael Zanfardino, an associate of the rival Genovese Family. Petrucelli witnessed the shooting. A few hours later, near P.S. 108 in the Bronx, Petrucelli stabbed Paul Cicero, a cousin of a Genovese Family associate, to avenge the shooting of Mazzarella. Sean McKernan, a childhood acquaintance of both Petrucelli and Cicero, saw Petrucelli lunge at Cicero from his position seated on a stoop near P.S. 108, but he did not observe the stabbing because a concrete wall blocked the lower three-quarters of Petrucelli's and Cicero's bodies. After *33 Petrucelli left the scene, Cicero passed in front of the stoop where McKernan was sitting and said, "That bastard Johnny just stabbed me" while clutching his stomach. Cicero subsequently bled to death on the operating table at a nearby hospital. On June 21, 1995, the day after the shooting and stabbing, Steven Crea, the Underboss of the Luchese Family, summoned Petrucelli to a meeting. Crea explained that the Genovese Family had contacted him to prevent the Tanglewood Boys from taking revenge against Zanfardino. Petrucelli informed Crea that he had stabbed Cicero in response to Mazzarella's shooting. Petrucelli then fled to Las Vegas, where he stayed with his grandmother, and later his aunt and uncle, for several weeks. A few days later, Acting Boss of the Genovese Family, Liborio Bellomo, requested a meeting with Joseph Defede, the Acting Boss of the Luchese Family, to discuss the circumstances surrounding the shooting and stabbing. Bellomo asked Defede to ensure that the Tanglewood Boys not to pursue Zanfardino and argued that the Cicero murder constituted sufficient revenge against the Genovese Family for Mazzarella's shooting. Defede granted Bellomo's request.
Read more:
https://casetext.com/case/petrucelli-v-us-2
More on the request and denial
PETRUCELLI v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Civil Action No. 11-1780 (RBW).
JOHN A. PETRUCELLI, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant.
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
May 26, 2015.
JOHN A. PETRUCELLI, Plaintiff, represented by Paul David Wolf.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant, represented by Claire M. Whitaker, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
REGGIE B. WALTON, District Judge.
The plaintiff, a federal prisoner, brought this action under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), see 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2006), against the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ"), demanding the release of records maintained by the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), the Executive Office for United States Attorneys ("EOUSA"), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). In an earlier opinion that granted in part and denied in part the most recent motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, the Court concluded that: (1) the BOP conducted reasonable searches for records responsive to the plaintiff's FOIA requests; (2) the BOP properly withheld information under FOIA Exemptions 6, 7(C) and 7(F); (3) the EOUSA and the FBI conducted reasonable searches for records responsive to the plaintiff's FOIA requests; (4) the EOUSA and the FBI properly withheld information under FOIA Exemptions 3, 5 and 7(C); and (5) that the relevant records were compiled for law enforcement purposes within the scope of FOIA Exemption 7. See Petrucelli v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, ___, 2014 WL 2919285 (D.D.C. June 27, 2014). In those respects, the defendant's most recent prior motion was granted. Id. at *20. The motion was denied in part because the "EOUSA failed to justify its decisions to withhold information under FOIA Exemptions 7(D) . . . and 7(F), and because the FBI failed to adequately justify its decisions [to withhold information] under FOIA Exemptions 7(D) . . . and 7(E). . . ." Id. This matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e), ECF No. 74, and the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, ECF Nos. 78, 80. For the reasons discussed below, the defendant's motion for summary judgment will again be granted in part and denied in part, and the plaintiff's motions will be denied.
Read More: http://leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020150527A63/PETRUCELLI%20v.%20DEPARTMENT%20OF%20JUSTICE
Some background on the original charges
In the early morning of June 20, 1995, Tanglewood Boy member Darin Mazzarella was shot by Michael Zanfardino, an associate of the rival Genovese Family. Petrucelli witnessed the shooting. A few hours later, near P.S. 108 in the Bronx, Petrucelli stabbed Paul Cicero, a cousin of a Genovese Family associate, to avenge the shooting of Mazzarella. Sean McKernan, a childhood acquaintance of both Petrucelli and Cicero, saw Petrucelli lunge at Cicero from his position seated on a stoop near P.S. 108, but he did not observe the stabbing because a concrete wall blocked the lower three-quarters of Petrucelli's and Cicero's bodies. After *33 Petrucelli left the scene, Cicero passed in front of the stoop where McKernan was sitting and said, "That bastard Johnny just stabbed me" while clutching his stomach. Cicero subsequently bled to death on the operating table at a nearby hospital. On June 21, 1995, the day after the shooting and stabbing, Steven Crea, the Underboss of the Luchese Family, summoned Petrucelli to a meeting. Crea explained that the Genovese Family had contacted him to prevent the Tanglewood Boys from taking revenge against Zanfardino. Petrucelli informed Crea that he had stabbed Cicero in response to Mazzarella's shooting. Petrucelli then fled to Las Vegas, where he stayed with his grandmother, and later his aunt and uncle, for several weeks. A few days later, Acting Boss of the Genovese Family, Liborio Bellomo, requested a meeting with Joseph Defede, the Acting Boss of the Luchese Family, to discuss the circumstances surrounding the shooting and stabbing. Bellomo asked Defede to ensure that the Tanglewood Boys not to pursue Zanfardino and argued that the Cicero murder constituted sufficient revenge against the Genovese Family for Mazzarella's shooting. Defede granted Bellomo's request.
Read more: https://casetext.com/case/petrucelli-v-us-2