Kuntz v. Department of Justice

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Riley S. Kuntz, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER
)
vs. 	)
)
Department of Justice, 	) 	Case No. 1:19-cv-070
)
Defendant. 	)
The plaintiff, Riley S. Kuntz (Kuntz), initiated the above-entitled action on April 22, 2019.
His complaint appears to set forth claims for the unlawful withholding of agency records under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a challenge to DOJ Order 556-73 under the Administrative
Procedures Act (APA), and a challenge to agency action with respect to a purported watch list
placement under the APA.
On May 21, 2019, the Government filed a “Motion to Set Time to Answer or Otherwise
Respond.” Advising that it received a copy of the summons and original complaint from Kuntz by
certified mail on May 1, 2019, it seeks the Court’s guidance in determining the date on which its
answer to the complaint is due. 	Its uncertainty regarding its deadline for filing an answer is
attributable to the nature of the claims being asserted by Kuntz in his original complaint. 	Rule
12(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides the Government must generally serve an
answer to a complaint within sixty days after service on the United States attorney. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(a)(2). However, in FOIA cases, statutes require it to serve an answer or otherwise respond
within thirty days after service of the complaint, unless the court otherwise directs for good cause
shown. 	5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(C).
1
Case 1:19-cv-00070-DLH-ARS Document 10 Filed 05/23/19 Page 1 of 2

On May 23, 2019, Kuntz filed an amended complaint as a matter of course. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(a)(1) (“A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: (A) 21 days after
serving it, or (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after
service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f),
whichever is earlier.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 (d) (“When a party may or must act within a specified time
after being served and service is made under Rule 5(b)(2)(C) (mail), (D) (leaving with the clerk),
or (F) (other means consented to), 3 days are added after the period would otherwise expire under
Rule 6(a)). 	In his amended complaint, he reiterated his original claims. He then when on to
assert what appear to be additional claims for an alleged violation of his rights under the “Brady
Bill” and the First, Second, and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
The Government’s motion (Doc. No. 8) insofar as it requests the court to set a deadline for
it to serve and file an answer is GRANTED. Given that Kuntz has now filed an amended complaint,
which is now the operative pleading, the Government need not file an answer or otherwise respond
to the original complaint. The Government shall have until June 24, 2019, to file its answer or
otherwise respond to the amended complaint. 	Should it require additional time, it may file the
appropriate motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 23rd day of May, 2019.
/s/ Clare R. Hochhalter
Clare R. Hochhalter, Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
2
Case 1:19-cv-00070-DLH-ARS Document 10 Filed 05/23/19 Page 2 of 2