Reed v. United States Attorney Office District of Minnesota
- Jeffrey Bryan
- 0:24-cv-00539
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Reed v. United States Attorney Office, Judge Bryan dismissed Reed’s FOIA action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and denied his fee-waiver application as moot.
Tony Lendell Reed’s FOIA action was dismissed without prejudice, his application to proceed without prepaying fees and costs was denied as moot, and he was ordered to pay $295.91 in unpaid filing fees.
What happened
Tony Lendell Reed sued the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota under the Freedom of Information Act, alleging that requested documents had been damaged, destroyed, or lost. Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz recommended dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denial of Reed’s application to proceed without prepaying fees as moot.
Reed objected, but the court found that his objection did not show that the USAO had improperly withheld agency records or establish the court’s jurisdiction. The court also stated that the contents of the allegedly withheld information did not affect whether Reed could establish jurisdiction.
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan overruled Reed’s objection and adopted the recommendation. The court dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 12(h)(3), denied the fee-waiver application as moot, ordered Reed to pay $295.91 in unpaid filing fees, and directed notice of that obligation to the authorities where he was incarcerated.
The detailed version
- Reed v. United States Attorney Office District of Minnesota · No. 0:24-cv-00539
- Jeffrey M. Bryan
- Oct. 24, 2024
Background
Tony Lendell Reed, representing himself, brought this action under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552. The United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota was the defendant. Reed also filed an application to proceed without prepaying fees and costs.
Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the action be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The recommendation also stated that Reed’s application to proceed without prepaying fees and costs should be denied as moot. Reed objected, and the USAO did not respond.
Court’s Analysis
The district court reviewed the portions of the recommendation to which Reed specifically objected without deference, a process called de novo review. Because Reed was representing himself, the court read his objection liberally.
Reed generally challenged the recommendation’s conclusion that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. He stated that the USAO had damaged, destroyed, or lost documents he had requested. The court concluded, however, that Reed did not explain how he had met his burden of showing that the USAO improperly withheld agency records. The court also concluded that the contents of any allegedly withheld information did not affect Reed’s ability to establish the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. After conducting de novo review, the court agreed that Reed had not carried that burden.
Ruling
Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan overruled Reed’s objection and adopted the Report and Recommendation. The court ordered:
- Reed’s objection to be overruled. - The action to be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 12(h)(3) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. - Reed’s application to proceed without prepaying fees and costs to be denied as moot. - Reed to pay the unpaid balance of the statutory filing fee, $295.91, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). - The Clerk of Court to notify the authorities where Reed was incarcerated about the payment obligation.
The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.