UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

___________________________________ ) RO OSEV ELT P ETIT -F RE RE , ) ) P la in t if f, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 09-1732 (R WR) ) U. S. A TTOR

NE Y’ S OF F IC E forth e ) S.D. of F LORIDA e t al

. , )

) De fend ant s. )

___________________________________ )
M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint under the Fr eedom of Information Ac t (“F OIA”) , 5 U.S.C. § 552, and Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, ag ainst the U.S. Attorney ’s Off ice f or the S o u th e r nD i s tr i c to f

F l o r i d a ( “ U S A O ” ) an d

th e E x e c u t i v e O f

f i c e o f U n i t e d S t at e s A t t o r

n e ys (“EO USA”), a

component of the Depa

rtment of Just ice ( “DOJ”). B eca use it is evident from the fa c e of the c omp la int

that th e pla int if

f h a s n ot e xha

us te d h is a dmi nis tr ativ e re me die s, a s is
re qu ir e d b e fo re fi lin ga

c ivi l a c tio n und e r t

he F OIA, the c omp la int

wi ll b e dis mis se d p ur su ant t o the cour t’s authority

under 28 U .S.C. § 1915A(b)( i ) (r equiringimmediate dismissal of complaints filed by

prisoners pr ocee ding in f orma pa uperis that fa il to st ate a

claim upon which relief may be g rante d). I. F ACTUAL BACK GR OUND Th e c omp la int

a lle g e s th at in

late June , 2 00 8, the pla int if f s ub mitte d a

F OIA r e qu e st t o the USAO in Miami, which for war ded the r equest to the EOU SA for proc essing . Compl. ¶¶ 3, 4. Th e EO USAno tif

ie d p la int if

f b y le tte r d ate d Augus t 28 , 2 00 8, that it wo uld a ssi g n th e re qu e st t o- 2 -

one of two tra cks, depe nding on the siz e of the reque st, and proce ss the reque st in the order it wa s
rec eived within that trac k. Id. ¶ 5 & Ex . C. EOUSA’s letter to plaintiff state d that the larg er projec ts usually

take a pproxi mately

nine months to process. Id. Approxim ately ten months later, EOUSA had not infor

med plaintiff of the results of his reque st or responde d to his inqui ries, and the plaintiff filed a

n administrative appe al. Id. ¶¶ 6- 8. The DO J ’s Off ice of Information and Privacy (“O I P”), which ha

ndles appe als related to FOIA re quests submitt ed to EOUSA,
re sp on de d b y

le tte r a dv isi ngthat be c a

us e “ no a dv e rs e de te rm inatio n h a s ye t be e n ma de , th e re is no action for

this Office to consider on a ppeal.” Id. ¶ 9 & Ex . G. The O I P’s letter also stated that the Fr eedom of

Information Ac t itself contemplates the f iling of a lawsuit by

the re qu e ste r, rathe r t

ha n a n a dmi nis tr ativ e a

pp e a l, whe n a

n a g e nc y ha s f a ile d to respond to a r equest within the statutory time limi ts. See 5 U .S. C. § 552(a) (6)( C)( i ). Id. On the pr e mis e that “ it i s axiomatic that Pla int if f h a s c on str

uc tiv e ly e xha us te d h is administrative re medies,” be cause he “ha s not rece ived any responsive r ecor ds” or “ notice of a n extension of tim e in which to re spond to a FO IA re quest under 5 U .S.C. § 552(a)(6) (B ),” id. ¶ 19, the plaintiff filed this civil action. II. DI SCU SSIO N When review ing a

complaint under 28 U .S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a c laim upon which re lief may

be g rante d, a cour

t applies the same sta

ndards f or re viewinga complaint upon a motion to di smiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the F eder al Rules of Civil P roce dure. I n deter mining wh e the r a c omp la int

fa ils to s tate a

c la im u po n whic h r e lie f m ay

be g ra nte d, a c ourt g e ne ra lly “must acc ept as true all of the fa ctual alleg ations contained in the c omplaint,” Erickson v

.The 20-da y period, whic h beg ins when the a ppropriate component of the ag ency 1 rec eives the r equest, may be tolled or e x tended unde r ce rtain circ umstances. See5 U .S. C. § 552(a) (6)( A)( ii ) (spe cifying c ircumstance s for tolling) ; 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6) (B ) (spe cify ing circ umstances f

or extension). - 3 - Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007), and “ g rant plaintiffs the be nefit of a ll inferenc es that ca n be derive d from the f

acts a lleg ed,” but ne ed not ac cept e ither a pla intiff’s leg al conc lusions, or infere nces dr awn by

the plaintiff if those infe renc es ar e unsupported by fac ts alleg ed in the complaint. Kowal v. MCI Communications Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 ( D.C. Cir. 1994). “To survive a motion to dismiss , a complaint must contain suffic ient fac tual matter, a cce pted as true , to state a c laim to relief that is plausible on its fac e. . . . A c laim has fac ial plausibilit y when the plaintiff pleads f

actua l content that allows the c ourt to draw the rea sonable infe renc e that the defe ndant is liable for the misconduct alleg ed.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct . 1937, 1949 (2009) (interna l quotation marks and citations omitted). The F OIA re quires ea ch ag ency , upon rec eipt of a F OIA re quest submitted in accor dance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3) , to de te rm ine wi thi n 2 0 d ay s ( e xce pti ngSatur da y s, Sun da y s, and le g a l pu bli c ho lid ay s) a ft e r t

he re c e ipt of any su c h r e qu e st wheth er to compl y with su ch re que st and . . . immediately

notify the per son makingsuch re quest of such de te rm inatio n a

nd the re a so ns the re fo r, and of the ri g ht o f s uc h p e rs on

to a pp e a l to the hea d of the a g ency

any adver se dete rmination. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6) (A)( i ) ( e mph a sis a dd e d)
. No tif yinga re qu e ste r o f whe the r t

he a g e nc y wi ll 1 comply with the reque st is not t he same thing a s deliveringthe re quested doc uments. See Spannaus v. U.S. De

p’t of Justice, 824 F.2d 52, 59 n.7 ( D.C. Cir. 1987) (distinguishingbetwee n when the F BI

deter mined whether

to comply

with the reque st and when it deliver ed the do c ume nts ). To the c ontr ary , a ll that is re qu ir e d in thi s c ir c uit

wi thi n th e tim e pe ri od

is “ a re ply- 4 -

from the a g ency

indicatingthat it is responding to [the] request.” Oglesby v . Dep’ t of Army, 920 F.2d 57, 61 ( D.C. Cir. 1990). Th e F OIA f

ur the r p ro vid e s th at [a] ny person makinga re quest to any ag ency for r ecor ds under pa

ragraph . . . ( 3) of this subsection shall be dee med to have e x hausted his administrative re medies wi th r e sp e c t to su c h r e qu e st i f t he a g e nc y fa ils to c omp ly

wi th t he a pp lic a ble tim e limitprovisions of this paragraph. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6) (C)( i ). I n interpre ting these provisions, the Court of Appea ls for the District of Col umb ia

Cir c uit ha s st ate d th at 5 U
. S
. C
. § 5 5 2 ( a ) ( 6 ) ( C ) p e r m i t s a r e qu e s t e r t o f i l e a l aw s u i tw h e n[ tw e n ty] d ays have pa sse d w ith out a

re ply fr om t he a g e nc y ind ic atin gthat it

is r e sp on din gto h is re qu e st, but th at th is o pti on la sts on ly

up to t he po int that an a g e nc y

a c tua lly responds. Onc e the a g ency has re sponded to the re quest, the petitioner may no longe r exercise his option t o g o to court immediately . Rather, the r equeste r ca n seek judicia l reviewonly

afte r he ha s unsucce ssfully appea led to the hea d of the ag ency as to any denial and the reby

exhausted his administ rative r emedies. Oglesby, 920 F.2d at 61. Thus, even if a n ag ency does not meet the de adlines imposed by § 552(a) (6)( A)( i ), “ on c e the a g e nc y re sp on ds to t

he F OIA r e qu e st, the re qu e ste r m us t e xha us t hi s administrative re medies bef ore se ekingjudicial revie w.” Oglesby, 920 F.2d at 65. In other words, “[i]f the ag ency

responds to the re quest afte r the twe nty -day statutory window, but befor e the re quester f

iles suit, the administ rative e x haustion require ment still applies.” Judicial W atch, Inc. v . Rossotti, 3 2 6 F. 3 d 1 3 0 9 , 1 3 1 0 (D
. C
. C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) ( ci t i n g Oglesby, 9 2 0 F
. 2 d at6 4
- 6 5 )
. In thi s c a se , th e EO USAre pli e d to the pla int if f o n Augus t 28 , 2 00 8, ind ic atin git w a s r e sp on din gto his request. See Og lesby , 920 F.2d at 61 (requir ing that the ag ency indicate that it is responding to t he re qu e st) ; seeCom

pl. ¶ 5 & Ex. C ( le tte r f

ro m E OU SA i nd ic atin gthat it wa s r e sp on din gto plaintiff’s re quest). B eca use EOUSA r esponded be fore plaintiff submitted this complaint for- 5 -

fi lin gon Au gus t 31 , 2 00 9, c on str

uc tiv e e xha

us tio n d oe s n ot a

pp ly and the pla int if

f i s r e qu ir e d to
e xha us t hi s a dmi nis tr ativ e re me die s b e fo re he c an e xer c ise his ri g ht t o h ave thi s c ourt e nte rt a in this suit
. Se e J

ud ic ial W atc h v . R os so tti

, 326 F.3d at 1310 (holding that if the ag ency responds befor e the plaintiff f

iles suit, the administ rative e x haustion require ment still applies). Whil e exhaustion of administrative re medies is not jurisdictional, “the FO IA’s administrative sche me favors treating f ailure to e x haust as a ba

r to judicial revie w.” Hidalgo v. F.B.I., 344 F.3d 1256, 1259 ( D.C. Cir. 2003). Permitting a F OIA re quester to pur sue judicial revie w without benef

it of prior consider ation at the administrative a ppeal leve l would allow pr e matur e int e rf

e re nc e wi th a g e nc y

pr oc e sse s a

nd de pr ive the pa

rt ie s a nd the c ourt s o f t

he be ne fi t of the a g ency ’s experienc e and e x pertise, a nd an ade quate r ecor d for judicial r eview. Id. There fore , as a pr

udential matter, where a F OIA plaintiff has not e x hausted his administrative
re me die s b e fo re fi lin gsu it, it i s a pp ro pr iate fo r t

he c ourt to d ism iss the c omp la int fo r f a ilure to state a c laim upon which re lief may be g rante d. Id. at 1258, 1260. III . C ON CL USI ON The c omplaint in thi s case makes c lear that well bef

ore the plaintiff filed this civil action, the EO USAha d r e sp on de d a c kn ow le dg ingpla int if f’ s F OIA r e qu e st a

nd ind ic atin gthat it

wo uld proce ss the reque st. Thus, the plaintiff’s cla im to constructive exhaustion is i ncorr ect in the f ace of the c ase la

w in this circuit, and the plaintiff’ s lawsuit is premature and not ripe f or
a dju dic atio n in

thi s f or um. Ac c or din g ly , b e c a

us e the pla int if

f d id n ot c on str

uc tiv e ly e xha us t hi s
a dmi nis tr ativ e re me die s, the c omp la int wi ll b e dis mis se d w ith out pr e jud ic e to r e ne w. A s e pa

rate order acc ompanies this memorandum opinion.- 6 -

SI GNED this 15th day

of Oc tober, 2009. / s /

RI CH ARD W. RO B ERT S Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge