1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

___________________________________

)

ALI SHUKRI AMIN, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 19-1572 (ABJ)

)

DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., )

Defendants. )

___________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ali Shukri Amin brings this action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), see 5 

U.S.C. § 552, alleging that various federal government agencies have refused to release the records 

he requested. This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or for Summary 

Judgment (ECF No. 22). For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS defendants’

motion.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, plaintiff plead guilty

to a single count of Providing Material Support and Resources to a Designated Foreign Terrorist 

Organization in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B. See Plea Agreement, United States v. Amin, No. 

1:15-cr-0164 (E.D. Va. June 11, 2015). The court imposed a 136-month term of imprisonment 

followed by a life term of supervised release. See Judgment in a Criminal Case, United States v. 

Amin., No. 1:15-cr-0164 (E.D. Va. August 28, 2015); see generally Compl., Ex. (Criminal Docket 

for Case # 1:15-cr-00164) (ECF No. 1 at 11-15 (page number designated by ECF)). 
2

According to plaintiff, he is actually innocent of the crime for which he has been convicted

and had been incarcerated unlawfully at a Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) facility.1 See Compl. 

¶¶ 2, 10. He demands the release of the following documents:

a) Certified copy of his plea agreement;

b) Affidavit of Criminal Complaint;

c) Information filed by the government;

d) Arrest warrant or summons;

e) Letter of Certificate of Concurrence;

f) Affidavit of Complaint of Probable Cause Hearing;

g) Grand Jury Transcripts;

h) Grand jury ballot;

i) Grand jury record, and;

j) All indictments, duly endorsed by their foreperson and the United 

States Attorney.

Id. ¶ 7. Plaintiff opines that the documents listed above “would demonstrate whether or not [he 

was] held lawfully, id. ¶ 10, yet defendants have refused to disclose them, see id. ¶¶ 4, 11, in 

violation of FOIA, see id. ¶¶ 2, 10.

The complaint itself does not identify a particular FOIA request plaintiff submitted to the 

U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), any of its components, or any other federal government 

agency. Attached to the complaint is a copy of a letter from the U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, indicating that it received a FOIA request 

from plaintiff on February 4, 2019. See id., Ex. (ECF No. 1 at 8-9). The Department of Homeland 

Security is not named a defendant in this action, however.

1

 When plaintiff filed this civil action on May 17, 2019, he was incarcerated at FCI Allenwood in 

White Deer, Pennsylvania. In November 2019, plaintiff advised the Court that he had been 

released from custody. See Notice of Change of Address (ECF No. 15) and Advice as to Reason 

for Change of Address (ECF No. 21).
3

II. ANALYSIS

A. Proper Defendants in a FOIA Case

A claim under FOIA is a claim against a federal government agency. See 5 U.S.C. 

§ 552(a)(4)(B) (conferring on the federal courts “jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from 

withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld 

from the complainant”); Cooper v. Stewart, No. 11-5061, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25010, at *2

(D.C. Cir. Dec. 15, 2011) (per curiam); Johnson v. United States, 239 F. Supp. 3d 38, 42 (D.D.C. 

2017), aff’d, No. 16-5221, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 19797, at *2 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 10, 2017) (per 

curiam). The Court therefore will dismiss the “named individual defendants because no cause of 

action exists that would entitle [Plaintiff] to relief from them under the . . . FOIA.” Martinez v. 

Bureau of Prisons, 444 F.3d 620, 624 (D.C. Cir. 2006). This case proceeds as against the U.S. 

Department of Justice.

B. Summary Judgment in a FOIA Case

Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6). Because defendants submit and the Court considers matters outside the pleadings, the 

Court treats defendants’ motion as one for summary judgment under Rule 56. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(d). The Court’s December 9, 2019 Order (ECF No. 24) advised plaintiff of his obligation to 

respond to a summary judgment motion and the consequences if he failed to do so. Thus, plaintiff 

has had “given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d).

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as 

to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

56(a). The party seeking summary judgment “bears the initial responsibility of informing the 

district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, . . . together 
4

with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material 

fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). To 

defeat summary judgment, the non-moving party must “designate specific facts showing that there 

is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. at 324 (internal quotation marks omitted). The mere existence of 

a factual dispute is insufficient to preclude summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 

477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). A dispute is “genuine” only if a reasonable fact-finder could find 

for the non-moving party; a fact is “material” only if it is capable of affecting the outcome of the 

litigation. Id. at 248; Laningham v. U.S. Navy, 813 F.2d 1236, 1241 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

When considering a motion for summary judgment under FOIA, the court must conduct a 

de novo review of the record. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). The Court may grant summary 

judgment based on information provided in an agency’s affidavits or declarations when they are 

“relatively detailed and non-conclusory,” SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C. 

Cir. 1991) (citation omitted), and “not controverted by either contrary evidence in the record nor 

by evidence of agency bad faith.” Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724, 738 (D.C. Cir. 

1981). Such affidavits or declarations are “accorded a presumption of good faith, which cannot 

be rebutted by purely speculative claims about the existence and discoverability of other 

documents.” SafeCard Servs., 926 F.2d at 1200 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

C. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Generally, in a FOIA case, “[e]xhaustion of administrative remedies is . . . required before 

filing suit in federal court so that the agency has an opportunity to exercise its discretion and 

expertise on the matter and to make a factual record to support its decision.” Hidalgo v. FBI, 344 

F.3d 1256, 1258 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (quoting Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army, 920 F.2d 57, 61 

(D.C. Cir. 1990)); see also 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6). While “the exhaustion requirement is not 

jurisdictional because the FOIA does not unequivocally make it so[,]” judicial review is precluded 
5

as a jurisprudential matter because “the ‘purposes of exhaustion’ and the ‘particular administrative 

scheme’ support such a bar.” Hidalgo, 344 F.3d at 1258–59 (quoting Oglesby, 920 F.2d at 61); 

see also Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. FEC, 711 F.3d 180, 182 (D.C. Cir. 

2013) (“[A] FOIA requester must exhaust administrative appeal remedies before seeking judicial 

redress.”); Oglesby, 920 F.2d at 61–62 (“Courts have consistently confirmed that the FOIA 

requires exhaustion of this appeal process before an individual may seek relief in the courts.”) 

(citations omitted). 

A proper FOIA request is one which “reasonably describes” the records sought and

complies with an agency’s published procedures. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A). A requester’s “failure 

to comply with an agency’s FOIA regulations is the equivalent of a failure to exhaust.” West v. 

Jackson, 448 F. Supp. 2d 207, 211–12 (D.D.C. 2006) (citing Ivey v. Snow, No. 05-1095, 2006 WL 

2051339, at *3 (D.D.C. July 20, 2006)). And if an agency does not receive a request pursuant to 

its published procedures, the agency has no obligation to respond to it. See Lopez v. Nat’l Archives 

& Records Admin., 301 F. Supp. 3d 78, 88–89 (D.D.C. 2018) (“Since it is undisputed that 

plaintiff’s request was not sent through the proper channels to CIA, the agency was not required 

to respond, and plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies as to that agency.”); Banks v. 

Lappin, 539 F. Supp. 2d 228, 235 (D.D.C. 2008) (granting judgment as a matter of law to 

defendants because there was no evidence they had received the FOIA request at issue). 

1. Federal Bureau of Prisons

FOIA requests to BOP are made through its website portal or by mail addressed to the 

Federal Bureau of Prisons, FOIA/PA Section, 320 First Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20534. 

Declaration of Kimberly Blow (ECF No. 22-3, “Blow Decl.”) ¶ 6. Prisoners typically submit 

FOIA requests by First Class mail because their access to the internet is restricted. See id. ¶¶ 6-7. 
6

BOP’s Central Office Mail Room receives all correspondence to BOP’s headquarters, and logs 

only those items sent by certified, priority or express mail or by a courier prior to delivery to the 

appropriate office or division. See id. ¶¶ 7-8. 

BOP tracks FOIA requests to the agency in a database called FOIAXpress. See id. ¶ 4. 

Upon receipt of a FOIA request by mail, a legal assistant stamps the envelope and request and 

reviews the submission to verify that it actually is a FOIA request. See id. ¶ 9. The assistant also 

determines whether “the requester seeks records about himself . . . and has provided a Certificate 

of Identity.” Id. If the requester is a current or former inmate who seeks information about himself, 

the legal assistant enters his or her registration number into FOIAXpress. Id. Such a request is 

scanned and emailed to the region encompassing the inmate’s current or last designated institution. 

See id. FOIAXpress automatically generates a tracking number (BOP FOIA Request Number). 

Id. BOP then sends a letter to the requester acknowledging receipt of his FOIA request and 

notifying him of the tracking number. See id. FOIAXpress can be searched by BOP FOIA Request 

Number, a requester’s name, and by an inmate requester’s register number. Id. ¶ 10. 

A search of FOIAXpress using plaintiff’s name and register number as search terms did 

not locate a FOIA request from him. Id. ¶ 12. Nor did a search of hard copy files at BOP’s FOIA 

Office locate a FOIA request from plaintiff. Id. Notwithstanding the slim chance that plaintiff 

submitted his FOIA request by email, BOP “search[ed] the BOP’s eFOIA electronic inbox to 

determine if BOP . . . forwarded his request to the [EOUSA] since the records he sought . . . relate 

to his criminal case.” Id. ¶ 13. A search using plaintiff’s name and register as search terms did 

not locate a referral to EOUSA. Id.
7

2. Executive Office for United States Attorneys

A FOIA request to the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (“EOUSA”) is made 

either through an online portal or by mail addressed to EOUSA at 175 N Street, N.E., Suite 5.400, 

Washington, DC 20530-0001. Declaration of Ebony Griffin (ECF No. 22-4, “Griffin Decl.”) ¶ 7. 

Prisoners “generally mail FOIA requests to the physical address due to internet restrictions that 

preclude usage of the FOIA online portal.” Id. ¶ 8. Upon receipt, a staff member logs the request 

into a correspondence log book, enters the request in EOUSA’s FOIA online database, and assigns 

the matter an EOUSA processing number. See id. ¶ 9. 

EOUSA searched its FOIA online portal by plaintiff’s name and did not locate a FOIA 

request from him. Id. ¶ 10. And after having searched the EOUSA correspondence log book for 

requests received by mail in 2019, EOUSA concluded that plaintiff had not submitted a FOIA 

request. Id. ¶ 11.

3. Office of Information Policy

A requester may submit a FOIA request to OIP by mail or email. Declaration of Vanessa 

R. Brinkmann (ECF No. 22-5, “Brinkmann Decl.”) ¶ 2. A member of OIP’s Initial Request staff 

logs in each FOIA request in an electronic tracking system. Id. 

OIP searched its electronic tracking system and “the email inboxes OIP has set up to 

receive FOIA requests from requesters or from other [DOJ] components [which] route FOIA 

requests to OIP.” Id. The searches used plaintiff’s full name and only his last name as search 

terms. See id. These searches “yielded no results related to [p]laintiff.” Id.

4. United States Marshals Service

A prisoner may submit a FOIA request to the U.S. Marshals Service (“USMS”) by mail 

addressed to: FOIA/PA, Office of General Counsel, CG-3, 15th Floor, Washington, DC 20350-
8

0001. Declaration of Charlotte Luckstone (ECF No. 22-6, “Luckstone Decl.”) ¶ 5. There, 

incoming mail is scanned and transported to USMS Office of General Counsel in Arlington, 

Virginia. Id. Each FOIA request is “logged into the agency’s FOIA access database, which is a 

Microsoft Excel based application, and assigned a USMS processing number.” Id. ¶ 6. The log 

indicates the date on which USMS received the request, the individual who submitted it, the 

information requested, and the OGC FOIA/PA Specialist assigned to process the request. See id.

The FOIA/PA Specialist “may conduct a preliminary search of database(s) containing 

records collected by the USMS.” Id. ¶ 7. If the specialist determines that responsive records might 

be located in a District Office or elsewhere at USMS Headquarters, he or she refers the matter to 

that office, where the appropriate staff member would conduct a search for responsive records. 

See id. ¶¶ 8, 10. If that staff member locates potentially responsive records, he or she send them 

to the FOIA/PA Specialist at OGC for review, processing, and response to the requester. See id. 

¶¶ 10-11. 

“USMS maintains an electronic shared drive where records pertaining to completed FOIA 

requests are maintained.” Id. ¶ 12. Information in this shared drive is arranged by fiscal year, and 

within each fiscal year, records are arranged alphabetically by the requesters’ names. Id. Id. 

Searches of the USMS FOIA database and the electronic shared drive using plaintiff’s name as a 

search term yielded no results. See id. ¶¶ 13-14.

Plaintiff explains that he addressed a FOIA request to “Freedom of Information Act 

Director” at 111 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., ULLICO Building, Washington, DC 20539. Pl.’s 

Opp’n ¶ 2.2 Further, he states that, “[f]or reasons unknown to him, that office chose to forward 

2

 As indicated in its January 10, 2020 Minute Order, the Court construes plaintiff’s “Motion to 

Strike Defendants’ Motion and Cause Shown as to Genuine Dispute of Material Fact” (ECF No. 

25) as plaintiff’s opposition (“Pl.’s Opp’n”) to Defendants’ motion.
9

his request to the . . . United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.” Id. Plaintiff suggests 

that the agency should have directed his FOIA request elsewhere, and considers his incarceration 

a valid reason for not having identified the appropriate recipients of his requests. See id. ¶ 19. 

According to plaintiff, it is unreasonable for him “to have been . . . required to locate the address 

of the offices of every pertinent [FOIA] branch and send each an independent request – for 

documents he was entitled to ab initio – whilst incarcerated.” Id. ¶ 20. For him, exhaustion “a 

tangential issue . . . of no direct importance to the issue of illegally concealed criminal 

documentation.” Id. ¶ 25. Nevertheless, plaintiff purports to have made “laborious attempts to 

obtain this information under the [FOIA] and otherwise . . . prior to this suit.” Id. ¶ 23. 

An agency’s obligation to disclose records “is not triggered . . . until a proper request has 

been received.” Pickering–George v. Registration Unit, DEA/DOJ, 553 F. Supp. 2d 3, 5 (D.D.C. 

2008); see also 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i) (requiring an agency to “determine within 20 days . . . 

after receipt” of a request “whether to comply” with it and to notify the requester accordingly). It 

is not enough that Plaintiff mailed a FOIA request to a federal government agency. He must show 

that he sent proper FOIA requests to BOP, EOUSA, OIP or USMS, and that these DOJ components 

actually received his requests. He fails to do so, and in contrast, defendants demonstrate that none 

received a FOIA request from plaintiff. 

Although exhaustion of administrative remedies does not bar judicial review automatically, 

see Oglesby, 920 F.3d at 61, this Circuit consistently has held that FOIA’s administrative scheme 

supports such a bar, and thus “requires each requestor to exhaust administrative remedies” prior to 

filing suit. Hidalgo, 344 F.3d at 1259 (citing Sinito v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 176 F.3d 512, 516 

(D.C. Cir. 1999) (additional citations omitted). Here, plaintiff’s failure to submit a proper FOIA 

request deprives each defendant agency of an opportunity to apply its expertise and make a factual 
10

record for this Court’s review. The purposes of administrative exhaustion simply are not served 

in the circumstances of this case. See Freedom Watch, Inc. v. FBI, No. 18-1912, 2019 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 1598, at *7 (D.D.C. Jan. 4, 2019) (dismissing FOIA case where “[j]urisprudential 

considerations behind the purposes of both exhaustion and FOIA support” dismissal); Macleod v. 

U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 15-1792, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153651, at *34 (D.D.C. Sept. 

21, 2017) (concluding that requester’s “failure to avail himself of an administrative appeal clearly 

forecloses his ability to challenge the [the agency’s] response in this lawsuit”).

III. CONCLUSION

Based on defendants’ showing that plaintiff failed to submit a proper FOIA request to the 

Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the Office of 

Information Policy or the U.S. Marshals Service, the Court concludes that Plaintiff did not exhaust 

his administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s 

Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment. An Order is issued separately.

DATE: June 29, 2020 /s/

AMY BERMAN JACKSON

United States District Judge