Windom v. Drug Enforcement Administration

Background

Cameron Windom, who was not represented by a lawyer, sued the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). He alleged that he sent separate requests in July 2019 under the Freedom of Information Act, a federal law governing public access to agency records, and that the agencies failed to comply. He also stated that he had completed the required administrative process before filing suit.

The complaint’s allegations

Windom’s complaint said he requested records relating to transactions, communications, and contracts concerning the “Guns and Fist Newsletter Documents” and related concepts. The court found that the complaint stated the basic elements of a Freedom of Information Act claim but relied mainly on conclusory statements. It did not explain how Windom submitted the requests, whether either agency responded, or what steps he took to pursue administrative remedies. The court also said it was unclear what records he requested or whether responsive records existed.

Court’s analysis

Because Windom applied to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Screening requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from a defendant protected from that type of relief. The court applied the rule requiring a complaint to include enough factual allegations to make the claim plausible, while construing a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally.

The court explained that a valid Freedom of Information Act claim generally requires facts showing that the requester made a qualifying request, that the agency improperly withheld records or otherwise failed to comply, and that the requester completed required administrative steps. The court did not decide whether Windom’s requests reasonably described the records sought, stating that the wording of the requests was not clear enough at this stage. It also did not decide whether all of the relief Windom sought was available under the statute.

Ruling and next steps

Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero granted Windom’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court ordered Windom to show cause—meaning to explain—why his complaint should not be dismissed under the federal screening statute. By August 4, 2020, Windom had to either file an amended complaint supplying facts about how he submitted the requests, how the defendants responded, and how he pursued administrative remedies, or respond by arguing that the existing complaint was sufficient.

The court did not dismiss the complaint in this order. It stated that if Windom did not respond by the deadline, the case would be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation that it be dismissed with prejudice. The court also continued the case management conference to October 30, 2020.