helpful if the district court instituted procedures to retain copies of the unfiled complaints as part of the miscellaneous file in which the injunction is imposed. 11 . Initially, this court granted the defendants' motion for summary affirmance in part. See Powell v. Department of Justice, No. 86-5680 (D.C.Cir. April 20, 1988) (unpublished order) (affirming the dismissal of Powell’s constitutional claims). More recently, however, we issued an order denying the remainder of the Bureau of Prisons’ motion for summary affirmance. In addition, we sua sponte reversed the district court’s judgment as it related to Powell’s Privacy Act claims and remanded the case for further consideration. See Powell v. Department of Justice, No. 86-5680, Order at 1 (D.C.Cir. June 20, 1988) (to be published) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). 12 . One of Powell’s
holding that court may refuse leave to amend because of undue delay holding that although district courts have discretion to deny leave to amend they may only do so for a substantial reason holding that dismissal with leave to amend should be granted even if no request to amend was made holding a person at anothers residence solely for the purpose of engaging in drug related activity has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the residence holding that there was no legitimate reason for the bureau of prisons bop to refuse to amend a record already made public with regard only to powells correct residence address