Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03098/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03098-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

WALTER J. MOORE, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

No. 90-3098 

FILED 

Uoited Sratefi ~i< '?f APf]eilt 

'tenth C1rcmt 

UG l 51Q80 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) 

) 

) 

KANSAS DEPT. OF SOCIAL ) 

AND REHABILITATION SERVICES, ) 

KANSAS DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, ) 

& KANSAS DEPT. OF HEALTH AND ) 

ENVIRONMENT, ) 

(D. Kan. No. 90-3093-S) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff-appellant brought this civil rights action under 42 

u.s.c. § 1983 against defendants, three state agencies, in the 

United States District Court for the District of Kansas. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. ' 

Appellate Case: 90-3098 Document: 010110040873 Date Filed: 08/15/1990 Page: 1 
,. 

Appellant alleged various constitutional violations stemming from 

the defendants' refusal to comply with his requests under the 

federal Freedom of Information Act ("the FOIA''), 5 U.S.C. § 552. 

By order entered March 27, 1990, the district court dismissed 

appellant's complaint "[b]ecause plaintiff's allegations fail to 

set forth a deprivation of his constitutional rights." See R. 

Doc. 4. Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration which the 

district court denied, see R. Doc. 6, and appellant took this 

appeal. See R. Doc. 6, 8. We grant appellant's motion to proceed 

in forma pauperis and affirm. 

The district court's order states that appellant failed to 

state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because he did not allege a 

constitutional violation. However, by its own terms, 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 provides relief for the "deprivation of any rights, 

privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." 

Despite the district court's misstatement, we affirm the court's 

order dismissing appellant's complaint because it fails to state a 

deprivation of either a constitutional or a federal statutory 

right. 

Appellant claims that he made various requests of defendants 

under the FOIA for disclosure of certain unspecified documents. 

He argues that defendants' failure to comply with his requests 

violated his rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments. 

The FOIA applies only to agencies as defined in the act. See 

5 U.S.C. § 552. An "agency" is defined under the FOIA as "each 

authority of the Government of the United States, whether or not 

it is within or subject to review by another agency." 5 U.S.C. § 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-3098 Document: 010110040873 Date Filed: 08/15/1990 Page: 2 
551(1). All three defendants are administrative agencies of the 

State of Kansas. See Kan. Stat. Ann. § 75-3501 et seq. (1989) 

(Dept. of Social and Rehabilitation Services); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 

75-5201 et seq. (1989) (Dept. of Corrections); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 

75-5601 et seq. (1989) (Environment Division of Dept. of Health 

and Environment). Under the terms of the FOIA, it is irrelevant 

whether, as appellant maintains, defendants are the recipients of 

federal funds. Only federal agencies are subject to the FOIA. 

Applying the plain language of the FOIA, we hold that none of the 

defendants is subject to the act. See Kerr v. United States 

District Court for the Northern District of California, 511 F.2d 

192, 197 (9th Cir. 1975) (FOIA does not apply to California state 

agencies), aff'd 426 U.S. 394 (1976). Because appellant's claim 

fails to allege a violation of rights secured by the constitution 

or any federal statute, we AFFIRM the order of the district court 

dismissing the action.* 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

* In denying appellant's motion for reconsideration, the 

district court stated "[p]laintiff's remedy, if any, lies in state 

court." R. Doc. 6. We agree; appellant might have better success 

in obtaining the information which he seeks under the civil 

remedies provision of the Kansas Open Records Act. See Kan. Stat. 

Ann. §§ 45-222 (1989). 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-3098 Document: 010110040873 Date Filed: 08/15/1990 Page: 3