Marker v. Cardona

Background

Tania T. Marker, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an action against the U.S. Department of Education under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which generally requires federal agencies to disclose agency records upon request. She also invoked the Declaratory Judgment Act. The court had previously granted Marker permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees and dismissed her original complaint during statutory screening. Marker then filed an amended complaint.

Marker alleged that she submitted a FOIA request on February 4, 2022, seeking records related to federal or federally guaranteed student loans, including applications and payment histories, Free Applications for Federal Student Aid completed in her name, consolidation records, and records of ombudsman disputes and their outcomes. She alleged that the Department acknowledged her administrative appeals, sent her a compact disc, and later provided a response by email and portal download. According to Marker, the response did not include all requested documents and did not explain why the documents were missing, even though the Department stated that nothing had been withheld or exempt.

Claims and screening

Marker asserted three FOIA claims: failure to conduct an adequate search, wrongful withholding of nonexempt responsive records, and failure to meet FOIA’s statutory time limit. The court explained that it had to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 because Marker was proceeding without prepaying filing fees. At this stage, the complaint had to allege facts that plausibly supported the Department’s liability, and the court was required to read a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally.

The court also discussed FOIA’s administrative-exhaustion requirement, meaning that a requester generally must use the agency’s appeal process before suing when the agency has properly responded. Marker alleged that she appealed twice and had exhausted the administrative appeal process. She also specifically identified information she claimed was missing from the Department’s response.

Disposition

The court allowed service of the amended complaint on the Department. It ordered the Clerk of Court to issue a summons and directed the U.S. Marshal for the Northern District of California to serve the amended complaint, attachments, and the order without prepayment of fees. The court did not resolve whether Marker ultimately proved her FOIA claims. It stated that the order did not foreclose a later motion to dismiss by the Department. Judge Jacquelyn Corley also directed Marker to resources for people representing themselves, including the court’s handbook and Legal Help Center.