JAME S STE PHEN JON ES, Plaintiff,
v . U.S. DEP’T OF J USTI CE, De fe nd ant. UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT

F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

Civil Action No. 07-852 ( HHK)

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Plaintiff J ames Stephen Jones, proce edingpro se, a lleg es that the United States Depa rtment of Just ice ( “DOJ”) has not c omplied with the Fre edom of Information Ac t (“F OIA”) , 5 U.S.C. § 552. The matter is now bef ore the court on de fenda

nt’s second dispositive motion and plaintiff’ s motions for in camer a inspec tion of documents (that have not bee n either identified or r elea sed), f

or appointed c ounsel, and to take judicial notice. The rec ord unequivoca lly

establishes that plaintiff ha s not ex hausted his administrative re medies, a c ondition prec edent to maintainingthis lawsuit. Theref ore, the complaint will be dismiss ed without prejudice for f

ailure to state a

claim upon which r elief ma y be g rante d, and all pendingmotions wi ll b e de nie d a s mo ot.Plaintiff contends that on multiple occa sions, mail sent to hi m and by him has not 1 rea ched the intended re cipient. SeePl.’s Objections to Defe ndant’s Status Report Pursuant to the Court ’s Or de r o f O c tob e r 3 1, 20 08 and Re qu e st f

or Ap po intme nt o f C ouns e l; F ourt h M oti on to Take J udicial Notice. I

n making the deter

minations in t his FOIA suit, the court has be en ca ref ul to hold plaintiff blameless for a ny failure to communicate due to possible failure on the pa rt of prison staff to de liver mail as the se nder intende d. The c opy

of the F OIA re quest and COI that plaintiff filed in support of his asse rtion 2 bear s a handwritten date — pr esumably in plaintiff’s handwr iting — of O ctober 12, 2005. The c op y of the F OIA r e qu e st w ith out a CO Ithat th e DO J file d in su pp or t of its po sit ion

be ars a date of Oc tober 26, 2005 in the same handwr iting. The re is g ood rea son to think t hat the COI dated October 12, 2005 was ne ver r ece ived by the DOJ. -2- I . BA CKGROUND Plaintiff is a prisoner who r elies on prison staff to handle his outg oing a

nd incoming mail. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleg ing that the DOJ had not responded to his FOIA re quest. 1 The DO J filed its first disposit ive motion, supported by a copy of a le tter re sponding to plaintiff’ s FOIA re quest, and statingthat it had closed the c ase be cause plaintiff had not filed the require d
cer tificate of identity (“COI ”), the reby

failing to exhaust hi s administrative reme dies. Plaintiff submitt ed a sw orn statement, supporte d by a copy of his COI , attesting that he had inc luded a CO Iwi th h is F OIA r e qu e st, e ve n th ou g h th e DO J had no re c or d o f r e c e ivi ngit. Th e re c or d d id 2 not show conclusively

whether or not the DOJ’s response a sking f or a COI had eve r re ache d plaintiff. Construing the rec ord fa cts in the light most favor able to plaintiff, the c ourt denied the DO J’s f ir st d isp os iti ve mot ion

to d ism iss the c a se fo r p la int if f’ s f a ilure to e xha

us t hi s administrative re medies. See Mem. Op., Sept. 16, 2008 at 5-6. The rea fter, the DOJ determined that it would rely

on the COIdated Oc tober 12, 2005, that plaintiff f iled with his opposit ion. See Def .’s Submissi on, Oct. 16, 2008 (“ First Status Report”) a t 2.In f a c t, t he DO J had

se nt t he same a g g re g a tio n a

nd fe e a g re e me nt l e tte r t o p la int if f i n 3 May 2006, but rec eived no r esponse. Plaintiff conte nds that he neve r re ceive d the ea rlier letter
. See Plaintiff’s Objections to Def .’s Second Status Report, De c. 12, 2008, Ex. A. at 4 (stating that plaintiff did not timely

rec eive the Ma

y 15, 2006 letter a

nd did not see it until i t was filed a s an exhibi t to the DOJ ’s Fir st St atus Report). Pla int if f c la ims that he did

no t r e c e ive the DO J’s O c tob e r 1 4, 20 08 le tte r, but sa w i t 4 first as an e x hibit to t he DOJ’s First Status Report. He a lso asserts that he r esponded to the le tter by filing his Objec tions on the recor d. These O bjections wer e not re ceive d either by the Court or by the DOJ, but are now pa

rt of this rec ord, filed a s Ex hibit A to P l.’s Obj’ns.

-3- By letter dated Octobe r 14, 2008, the DO J notified plaintiff that his multipl e sea rch reque sts had been a g g reg ated into one, a nd that the fe e for

continuing to se arc h and proc ess the ag g reg ated r equests wa s estimated to be $56.00. See E x . G
. T h e l e t t e r a l s o s t a t e s th a tth e F O IA “re quest shall not be consider ed re ceive d and fur ther wor k shall not be completed until the reque ster agree s to pay

the anticipate d fee s,” and that if the reque ster did not respond within 30 day s, the reque st would be closed. Id. When the DOJ di d not rec eive a response within the allowed time, see Def

.’s Submissi on, Nov. 21, 2008 (“ Second Status Report”), it filed its sec ond dis po sit ive mot ion , n owbe fo re the c ourt , o n th e g ro un d th a t pl a int if f h a d n ot e xha

us te d h is
a dmi nis tr a tiv e re me die s. 3 In response to the DOJ’s October 14, 2008 letter reg ardingfee s and ag g reg ation, plaintiff states that he respe ctfully

reque sts that this Honora ble Court car efully

overse e and supe rvise the Def endant’ s action in their sea rch, c opying a

nd production of the r equeste d documents and a

naly ze any excuses of the De fenda

nt with an ey e towar ds Pla int if f’ s a lle g a tio ns of

g ov e rnme nt f

ra ud be ingtr ue , a nd ru le a c c or din g ly

a s th is Court deems just and prope r. Under such term s, Plaintiff ag ree s to pay the sea rch an d c o p yi n g f

e e s i nth e e v e n tth i s C o urtd e e m s i tn e c e s s ar y. See Pl. ’s Ob

je c tio ns to S e c on d St a tus Re po rt , D e c . 1 2, 20 08 (“ Pl. ’s Ob j’ ns ” ), Ex. A . at 8 (empha sis added). Plaintiff also objects to the ag g reg ation of his FOIA re quests and asse rts that 4-4-

he is entitled to a public intere st waiver of any fee s, see id., Ex. A , p os iti on s h e re ite ra te s in his opposition t o the DOJ’s second dispositive motion, see Opp’n at 4-7. II. A N A LY S IS On this recor d, there can be no g enuine dispute a s to the following f acts: (1) plaintiff has not ag ree d — absent multiple conditions and a cour t order — to pa

y the sea rch f ees; (2) plaintiff has not administratively

appea led the ag ency ’s dec ision to aggreg ate his re quests; and (3) that plaintiff neve r applied f

or, let alone administratively appea led an a dverse decision re g arding , a public interest wa iver of the sear ch and pr ocessingfee s. The F OIA incorpor ates a

scheme of administrative a ppeals that a

re de signe d to permit an ag ency “‘the opportunity

to exercise its discretion and e x pertise on the matter and to make a fac tual rec ord to support its decision.’” Hidalgo v. F.B.I., 344 F.3d 1256, 1259 ( D.C. Cir. 2003) (q u o t i n g Oglesby v . Dep’ t of Army, 920 F.2d 57, 61 ( D.C. Cir. 1990)). “The exhaustion
re qu ir e me nt a lso a llo ws the top mana g e rs of an a g e nc y

to c or re c t mi sta ke s ma de a t lo we r l e ve ls and ther eby

obviates unnec essar

y judicial revie w.” Oglesby , 920 F.2d at 61. Any decision by

an ag ency adver se to a re quester must be a ppeale d and re solved befor e it is entertaine d by a fe dera l d i s tr i c tc o urt ; a

f e d e r a l d i s tr i c tc o urti s n o tth e f o r u mf o r th e i n i t i a l d e t e r

m i n a t i o no f

a F O IA reque ster’s c halleng e to an a g ency ’s dec ision. See Cleary , Gottlief, Steen &Hamilton v. Dep’ t of Health and Human Sv cs ., 84 4 F . Su pp . 7 70 , 7 80 (D .D .C. 19 93 ) ( statin g in a F OIA c a se that “ fede ral district cour

t is not t he for

um for an initial asser

tion of non-compliance ”). “ Where a F OIA p la int if

f atte mpt s to ob ta in j ud ic ia l r e vie w w ith out f ir st p ro pe rl y

un de rt akin g fu ll administrative exhaustion, his l awsuit is subject to immediate dismissal . . . .” Judicial W atch, Inc. v . F.B.I., Civil Action No. 00-745 ( TFH ), 2001 WL35612541, *12 (D.D.C. Apr . 20, 2001).-5-

Fulfilling the FO I A’s exhaustion require ment is, as a matter of jurisprudential doc trine, a condition prec edent to filinga lawsuit, and f ailure to e x haust prec ludes judicial revie w. Hidalgo v. F.B.I ., 344 F.3d 1256, 1259 ( D.C. Cir. 2003). A FO I A re quester is de emed to have failed to e x haust administrative re medies whe never he does not c omply

with the fee require ments. See J udicial W atch v. F.B.I

., 2001 WL 35612541, *12. “Reg ardle ss of whethe r the plaintiff f iled suit before or af

ter re ceivinga re quest for pay ment, the plaintiff has a

n obligation to pay

for the r easona

ble copy ing a nd sear ch fe es assessed by

the def endant.” Trueblood v. U.S. De p’t of the Treasury, I.R.S., 943 F. Supp. 64, 68 (D.D.C. 1996) (c i t i n g Pollack v . Departme nt of Justice, 49 F.3d 115, 120 ( 4th Cir.), cert. de nied, 516 U.S. 843 (1995) (holdingthat pay ment of fe es is a statutory require ment under the FOIA and that the filing of a F OIA suit does not relieve the re quester of the obliga

tion to pay). Even when
a fe e a sse ssm e nt c ome s “ a ft e r t he fi lin g of

[the ] laws uit , [a ] pla int if f i s o bli g a te d n on e the le ss t o pay the fe e or to see k from the a g ency either a fee waiver

or a f ee r eduction.” Maydak

v. U.S. Dep’ t of Justice, 254 F. Supp. 23, 50 (D.D .C. 2003). I t is clear on this re cord that the administrative proc ess has not run its course and that the issues prese nted ar e not ripe f or judicial re view. The ag ency has notified plaintiff of

the
e sti mate d f

e e s and ha s a sk e d h im t o a g re e to p ay the fe e s; t

he a g e nc y ha s n o f ur the r o bli g a tio n to plaintiff until plaintiff ag ree s to pay or take s an administrative a ppeal. Plaintiff has ne ither committed to paying the fee s without conditions t he cour t declines to ac cept, nor

disputed the
a g e nc y ’s a g g re g a tio n d e c isi on or so ug ht a fe e wa ive r at th e a dmi nis tr a tiv e le ve l. Any dis pute reg ardingthe fe es, the a g g reg ation, or a f ee w aiver must first be raised a

nd pursued to exhaustion i nth e a dm i n i s tr a t i v e p r o c e s s b e f o r e i tw i l l b e e n t e rt a i n e d

i na f e d e r a l l aw s u i t . A c c o r d i n g l y,-6-

beca use plaintiff ha s not ex hausted his administrative re medies, the c omplaint will be dism issed without prejudice, a

nd all pendingmotions wil l be denied a s moot. A separate orde r
acc ompanies this memorandum opinion.

Henr y H. Kenne dy , J r. Da t e: S ep t em b er

9 , 2 0 0 9 Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ct J u d ge