Filed December 22, 2011
But as the Supreme Court has recognized, there is a presumption of legitimacy accorded to the Government’s official conduct. See, e.g., Ray, 502 U.S. at 164; Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 464); Chemical Foundation, 272 U.S. at 14-15. As the Supreme Court held in the face of similarly ungrounded accusations in the Favish case (in the Exemption 7(C) context), where “the public interest being asserted is to show that responsible officials acted negligently or otherwise improperly in the performance of their duties, the requester must establish more than a bare suspicion in order to obtain disclosure.
Filed January 17, 2014
Secretarial Order 3310 has been defunded, its implementing manuals have been superseded, and evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties.” United States v. Chemical Found. Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926); Citizens to Pres. Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 415 (1971); U.S. Postal Serv. v. Gregory, 534 U.S. 1, 10 (2001).
Filed February 28, 2011
n. 14; Bracyv. Gramley (1997) 520 U.S. 899, 909; United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc. (1926) 272 U.S. 1, 14-15; Kyles, supra, 514 U.S. at 439-440; Bagley, supra, 473 U.S. at 675 n. 6; and Olmstead v. United States (1928) 277 U.S. 438, 484)); and 430 (Claim 121 (Petitioner was Deprived ofa Fair and Accurate Guilt and Penalty Phase Due to Lack of Available Material Evidence(citing second petition exhibit M)). 161 2. This Court should reconsider Its Prior Denial Of Petitioner's Repetitive Habeas Claims Due to The Ineffective Assistance of Prior Habeas Counsel.
Filed February 12, 2010
See Sierra Club v. Penfold, 857 F.2d 1307, 1319 (9th Cir. 1988) (“It would be a mistake for us to assume that because an EA was inadequate in the past, BLM will not comply with NEPA in the future.”); N. Cheyenne Tribe v. Hodel, 851 F.2d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 1988) (rejecting plaintiffs’ argument that oil and gas leases should be voided rather than suspended pending the completion of a new NEPA process because the risk of bureaucratic inertia would be the same in either case); League to Save Lake Tahoe, 2009 WL 3048739, at *7 (distinguishing Watt on the basis that the relevant agency decision had already been made); see also United States v. Chem. Found., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926) (“The presumption of regularity supports the official acts of public officers, and in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties.”).
Filed December 7, 2009
CBD overlooks entirely the fact that decisions of an administrative agency are entitled to a presumption of regularity. Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 415 (agency decision is entitled to a presumption of regularity), abrogated on other grounds, Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977); United States v. Chemical Found., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926) (“The presumption of regularity supports the official acts of public officers, and, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties.”) (citations omitted). To state a cause of action for improper political influence on an administrative agency, there must be some factual basis for a claim that: 1) the content of the pressure on the agency was to force it to decide upon factors not made relevant by Congress in the applicable statute; and 2) the agency’s determination must have been affected by those extraneous considerations.
Filed November 20, 2009
In the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, the doctrine presumes that public officers have properly discharged their official duties.”) (internal citations omitted); see also United States v. Chem. Found., Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926). That presumption should run to any future NEPA process undertaken by RUS.
Filed February 28, 2008
As the Supreme Court noted, mere allegations of bad faith are insufficient to defeat this presumption of regularity; rather, it requires “clear evidence to the contrary.” See Chemical Foundation, Inc., 272 U.S. at 14-15; see also National Archives and Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 174 (2004) (stating that where the presumption of regularity is applicable, “clear evidence is usually required to displace it”); Beverly Enterprises, Inc. v. Herman, 130 F. Supp. 2d 1,8 (D.D.C. 2000) (Urbina, J.) (“When a party accuses an agency of bad faith, the agency is entitled to a presumption of administrative regularity and good faith that must be overcome with evidence.”)
Filed January 30, 2008
Plaintiffs have failed to introduce any evidence that VA or VA officials would retaliate against the very individuals whom they serve, let alone the clear evidence necessary to rebut the presumption that officials “have properly discharged their official duties.” United States v. Chem. Found., 272 U.S. 1, 14- 15 (1926); see also United States v. Leavy, 422 F.2d 1155, 1157 (9th Cir. 1970) (“[F]rom a barren record we will presume no such dereliction of duty by an administrative agency.”).
Filed November 21, 2007
Plaintiffs’ argument lacks merit.10/ It is an established legal principle that agencies are presumed to act in accordance with the law and that their actions enjoy a presumption of regularity from the courts. See Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 415 (1971) (rev’d on other grounds) (agency decision is entitled to a presumption of regularity); United States v. Chemical Found., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926) (“The presumption of regularity supports the official acts of public officers, and, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties.”) (citations omitted).
Filed November 21, 2007
Plaintiffs’ argument lacks merit.10/ It is an established legal principle that agencies are presumed to act in accordance with the law and that their actions enjoy a presumption of regularity from the courts. See Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 415 (1971) (rev’d on other grounds) (agency decision is entitled to a presumption of regularity); United States v. Chemical Found., 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926) (“The presumption of regularity supports the official acts of public officers, and, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties.”) (citations omitted).