Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
D. Minn.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 7, 2024

Reed v. United States Attorney Office District of Minnesota

Judge
David Schultz
Docket
0:24-cv-00539
Court
U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
Pages
5
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Reed v. United States Attorney Office District of Minnesota, Judge Schultz recommended dismissing Reed’s information-request case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

Who this affects

Tony Lendell Reed, whose FOIA action was recommended for dismissal without prejudice and whose fee-waiver application was recommended for denial as moot, would also be required to pay the stated unpaid filing-fee balance. The United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota was the named defendant.

What happened

Tony Lendell Reed sued the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota under the Freedom of Information Act. He alleged that the office refused a request he made in September 2019 and sought an order requiring disclosure of the requested information.

The court said Reed had to show that the office improperly withheld agency records. Because his complaint did not explain what records he requested or why the office had to provide them, the court concluded that he had not shown that the court had power to hear the case.

In Reed v. United States Attorney Office District of Minnesota, Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz recommended dismissing the case without prejudice, denying Reed’s fee-waiver application as moot, and requiring payment of the unpaid filing-fee balance. The recommendation was not yet a final order or judgment, and the notice said objections could be filed.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Reed v. United States Attorney Office District of Minnesota · No. 0:24-cv-00539
Judge
David Schultz
Date
Aug. 7, 2024

Background

Tony Lendell Reed filed a complaint against the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a federal law governing access to agency records. Reed alleged that he submitted a written FOIA request to the office in September 2019 and that the office refused it. He requested an order requiring disclosure and a declaration that the request should be granted.

Reed also applied to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance. The report states that Reed is incarcerated at the U.S. Penitentiary–Coleman I and that he was convicted and sentenced in an earlier criminal matter in the District of Minnesota.

Court’s analysis

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), which requires dismissal whenever a court determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction—that is, the court’s legal power to hear the case. Under the FOIA provision cited in the report, jurisdiction depends on showing that an agency improperly withheld agency records.

The court concluded that Reed’s complaint did not provide enough information to make that showing. Although the complaint stated that Reed made a request in September 2019, it did not explain what he requested or why the United States Attorney’s Office was required to provide it. The court therefore found that Reed had not established the court’s jurisdiction.

Recommendation and effect

Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz recommended that the action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under Rule 12(h)(3) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal itself does not bar a later filing, although the report does not decide whether any future filing would succeed.

The report also recommended that Reed’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee be DENIED as moot. It further recommended that Reed be required to pay the unpaid filing-fee balance, stated as $295.91, and that the Clerk send notice of this payment obligation to the authorities where Reed is incarcerated.

The document is a Report and Recommendation, not an order or judgment of the District Court. It states that it is not directly appealable to the Eighth Circuit and that written objections could be filed within the period specified by the District of Minnesota’s local rules.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.