Fouts v. Executive Office for United States Attorneys
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-05295
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Fouts v. Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Chief Judge Swain denied reconsideration of the transfer and denied proceeding without prepaying appeal fees.
John R. Fouts’s FOIA case was transferred to the District of Columbia, and his requests to reconsider that transfer and to proceed without prepaying fees on appeal were denied. Any other pending matters were left for the transferee court.
What happened
In Fouts v. Executive Office for United States Attorneys, John R. Fouts, representing himself, brought a Freedom of Information Act case against the Executive Office for United States Attorneys. He alleged that the agency missed statutory deadlines and improperly withheld records, and he sought court orders and other relief on behalf of himself and his minor son.
The court had already transferred the case to the District of Columbia because Fouts did not reside in the Southern District of New York and did not show that the requested records were there. Fouts then filed emergency motions alleging outside interference and asking the court to reconsider the transfer and decide his request to proceed without prepaying fees.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied reconsideration under the local rule and denied relief under the federal rule allowing a court to revisit an order. The case was closed in the Southern District of New York, remaining matters were left for the District of Columbia court, and the court denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Fouts v. Executive Office for United States Attorneys · No. 1:25-cv-05295
- Laura Swain
- July 18, 2025
Background
John R. Fouts filed this self-represented action under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, against the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA). He filed on behalf of himself and his minor son. Fouts alleged that EOUSA failed to meet FOIA deadlines and improperly withheld all requested records under a blanket exemption without showing that it had released all reasonably separable portions. He sought injunctive and other relief.
The court had previously ordered the case transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The court explained that FOIA permits suit where the complainant resides, where the complainant has a principal place of business, where the agency records are located, or in the District of Columbia. The court found that Fouts did not reside in the Southern District of New York and that his complaint did not suggest that the requested records were located there. The court concluded that the District of Columbia was a proper venue.
Motions and jurisdiction
After the transfer order, Fouts filed two emergency motions alleging possible outside interference, including a possibly fictitious gag order, surveillance, or other unlawful directives. The court liberally construed the motions as one request for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3 and for relief from the transfer order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). The court did not treat the filing as a motion to alter or amend a judgment because no judgment had been entered.
Although a court that transfers a case ordinarily loses jurisdiction over it, the transferor court retains jurisdiction when a party seeks review before the transferee court’s clerk receives the case papers. Because Fouts filed the reconsideration motion before the District of Columbia court received the papers, the Southern District of New York court determined that it had jurisdiction to decide the motion.
Court’s analysis
Under Local Civil Rule 6.3, reconsideration requires showing that the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters previously presented. The court found that Fouts had not made that showing. It rejected his arguments concerning alleged outside interference and found no basis to conclude that the transfer was improper. The court therefore denied the motion under Local Civil Rule 6.3.
The court also considered the request under Rule 60(b), which permits relief from an order for specified reasons such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or other extraordinary circumstances. The court found that none of the grounds in Rule 60(b)(1) through (5) applied. It also found that Fouts had not shown the extraordinary circumstances required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6). The court therefore denied the motion under Rule 60(b) as well.
Disposition
The court denied Fouts’s motion for reconsideration of the transfer order and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the two emergency motions. The District of Columbia court was left to decide any other pending motions or applications. The matter was closed in the Southern District of New York. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied in forma pauperis status—that is, permission to proceed without prepaying court fees—for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.