Court Opinion

ID: 9470847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:17:25.664585+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:07.886925
License: Public Domain

KEITH,
Circuit Judge, concurring.
I agree completely with the majority’s analysis which concludes that the district court did not err in refusing to hold an in camera inspection. I also agree that Wolfel is not entitled to attorney’s fees under the FOIA; however, I base my conclusion on the second issue on a narrower ground than the majority opinion.
The record clearly reveals that Wolfel did not substantially prevail within the meaning of the FOIA. An antecedent condition to an attorney’s fee award is that the plaintiff show that he substantially prevailed in court or that his judicial action was the reason the agency released the information he sought. The aim of the provision is to compensate individuals who act as private attorney generals by enforcing the provisions of the FOIA. See Vermont Low Income Advocacy Council, Inc. v. Usery, 546 F.2d 509 (2d Cir.1976) wherein the legislative history of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E) is discussed. Accord, Cuneo v. Rumsfeld, 553 F.2d 1360, 1367 (D.C.Cir.1977). The plaintiff must show at a minimum that prosecution of the action was reasonably “necessary and had a substantial causative effect on the delivery of the information.” Id. at 513. The plaintiff in this case has shown neither of these conditions, since it appears that the government’s delay in evaluating his claim was due to an administrative backlog. When the claim was finally evaluated, the bulk of the materials were released.
This case is strikingly similar to Cox v. United States Department of Justice, 601 F.2d 1 (D.C.Cir.1979). In that case, a federal inmate also sought attorney’s fees under the FOIA. The court noted that the statutory provision vests the district court with discretion to award attorney’s fees. They are not automatic. Id. at 7 n. 4. But the court further stated that though a court order is not necessary to find that the complainant “substantially prevailed,” it is not enough that the release of the material followed in time the filing of the FOIA action. Accord, Vermont Low Income, 546 F.2d at 514 (Congress did not impose a rule of post hoc, ergo propter hoc).
I am not persuaded by the majority opinion’s seeming approval of the “majority rule” which would deny attorney’s fees to plaintiffs who do not hire attorneys in these cases. But more importantly, I think this is an issue that the court need not reach in the present case. I would affirm the denial of attorney’s fees based on the fact that Wol-fel did not substantially prevail within the meaning of the FOIA. I would reserve the more difficult issue of whether any pro se litigant is ever entitled to attorney’s fees until it is more appropriately presented in a future case.