Case Name: Darnell Wesly MOON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-28
Citations: 642 F. App'x 651
Docket Number: No. 15-3751
Parties: Darnell Wesly MOON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before BENTON, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 642
Pages: 651–652

Head Matter:
Darnell Wesly MOON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-3751.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: April 14, 2016,
Filed: April 28, 2016.
The appellant was pro se.
The appellee was not represented by counsel.
Before BENTON, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Darnell Moon, formerly a federal inmate at the United States Penitentiary at Terre Haute, Indiana, appeals the district court's preservice dismissal of his action seeking relief under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552. We grant his motion for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris.
While we agree that a litigant must exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a FOIA action in federal court, see Elnashar v. United States Dep't of Justice, 446 F.3d 792, 796 (8th Cir.2006) (exhaustion of administrative remedies is prerequisite to bringing suit under FOIA), we conclude that because FOIA is silent as to. whether exhaustion is a pleading requirement or an affirmative defense, see 5 U.S.C. § 552, the argument of non-exhaustion is an affirmative defense rather than a pleading requirement, see Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 127 S.Ct. 910, 919, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007) (if an act is silent as to whether exhaustion should be pled by plaintiff or treated as affirmative defense, general practice under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dictates that exhaustion should be treated as affirmative defense). Thus, Mr. Moon was not required to plead exhaustion in his complaint.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.