Fouts v. Executive Office for United States Attorneys
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-05295
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Fouts v. United States, Judge Swain transferred the pro se FOIA case to the District of Columbia because venue was improper in New York.
John R. Fouts's FOIA action was moved from the Southern District of New York to the District of Columbia; the opinion does not resolve his records dispute.
What happened
In Fouts v. United States, John R. Fouts, representing himself, sued under the Freedom of Information Act over records requests made on behalf of himself and his minor son. He alleged that the Executive Office for United States Attorneys did not meet FOIA deadlines and improperly withheld records.
The court explained that a FOIA case may be filed where the requester resides, where the agency records are located, or in the District of Columbia. Fouts stated that he resides in Louisville, Kentucky, and the court found that the agency involved is located in Washington, D.C.; therefore, venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York.
The court transferred the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under the federal venue-transfer statute, and the Southern District of New York case was closed. Judge Laura Taylor Swain also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Fouts v. Executive Office for United States Attorneys · No. 1:25-cv-05295
- Laura Swain
- July 8, 2025
Background
John R. Fouts brought this action without a lawyer under the Freedom of Information Act, a federal law governing access to agency records. He sought injunctive and other relief concerning records requests he made for himself and his minor son. Fouts alleged that the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, or EOUSA, failed to meet FOIA deadlines and withheld all records under a blanket exemption without showing that reasonably separable portions of the records had been released.
The opinion states that Fouts resides in Louisville, Kentucky. It also explains that the Montana address listed on the docket was a virtual-office address used for electronic filing and was not his residence.
Venue analysis
The court applied FOIA's venue provision, which permits a claim in the district where the complainant resides or has a principal place of business, where the agency records are located, or in the District of Columbia. For venue purposes, an individual's residence is the district where the person is domiciled.
The court concluded that venue was proper in the District of Columbia because EOUSA is located there and allegedly issued the final agency decision denying Fouts's FOIA request. The District of Columbia is also independently authorized as a venue for a FOIA action. Because Fouts did not reside in the Southern District of New York and did not have his principal place of business there, the court found that venue was improper in that district.
Disposition
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406, the court transferred Fouts's FOIA claims to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The clerk was directed to transfer the action, and any pending matters were left for the transferee court to decide. A summons was not to issue from the Southern District of New York, and the order states that the case was closed there.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The opinion does not decide whether EOUSA violated FOIA or whether Fouts is entitled to the requested records.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.