Carzoglio v. Klimek

Background

Angelo Carzoglio filed a self-represented action under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). He sought material collected during an investigation of Anthony Marraccini, described in the opinion as a former Harrison, New York, police chief who was convicted of tax evasion in a criminal case in the Southern District of New York. Carzoglio requested surveillance logs, the names of agents involved in the surveillance and investigation, and the arrest report.

Carzoglio first sent a request to the former Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York, who forwarded it to Stanley Klimek, an employee in the courthouse’s Records Management department. Klimek responded that Records Management did not have access to or store the sensitive documents Carzoglio requested. Carzoglio then requested the same material from Assistant United States Attorney James McMahon, who had prosecuted Marraccini. The Department of Justice’s Executive Office for United States Attorneys responded through Kevin Krebs that, because the request concerned a third party, it was not required to search for the records. After Carzoglio appealed, Priscilla Jones accepted the appeal and Matthew Hurd informed him that the appeal was denied and that he could file a lawsuit in federal court.

Claims Against Klimek and McMahon

The court explained that a proper FOIA defendant is the federal agency responsible for retaining the requested records. FOIA does not apply to individual defendants. The statute also excludes the federal courts from its definition of an agency. Because Klimek and McMahon were sued as individuals, the court dismissed the FOIA claims against them for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court specifically noted that Klimek was also an employee of a federal court.

Claims Against Krebs, Jones, and the Other Department of Justice Defendant

The court stated that Carzoglio could not assert FOIA claims against Krebs, Jones, and the remaining Department of Justice defendant as individuals. However, it declined to dismiss those claims at this stage. Instead, it left to the District Court for the District of Columbia the questions of how to address the claims and whether they could be understood as claims against a federal agency.

Transfer

The court concluded that the District of Columbia was a proper venue for the FOIA claims. The Executive Office for United States Attorneys, which made the final agency decision, was located there; the District of Columbia is independently listed as a permissible FOIA venue; and the court could not determine Carzoglio’s residence for venue purposes. The court therefore transferred the claims against Krebs, Jones, and the remaining defendant to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the interest of justice.

Other Orders and Disposition

The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate Carzoglio’s applications for pro bono counsel. It ordered that no summons issue from the Southern District of New York and stated that the order closed the case. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.

Classification

This is a procedural order. The court dismissed claims for failure to state a claim and transferred the remaining claims based on the proper defendant and venue; it did not decide whether Carzoglio was entitled to the requested records.