Farah v. United States Department of Justice
- John Tunheim
- 0:20-cv-00622
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 8
In Farah v. Department of Justice, Judge Tunheim denied the Department’s dismissal motion without prejudice, finding Farah exhausted administrative steps and allowing him to amend.
Mohamed Abdihamid Farah may continue the FOIA case through his amended complaint, while the United States Department of Justice may renew its dismissal motion against that complaint.
What happened
Mohamed Abdihamid Farah sued the United States Department of Justice under the Freedom of Information Act after he said the agency did not timely respond to his request for records related to his criminal prosecution. The Department later sent Farah a partial release of records and argued that he had not properly completed the agency’s appeal process before suing.
The court found that Farah had constructively exhausted that process because the Department did not effectively provide its response, did not return his calls seeking an update, and allegedly sent its response only shortly before the deadline for Farah’s separate court filing had passed. The court also found that Farah’s complaint did not identify specific problems with the partial release he later received, but that amendment was the appropriate way to address that issue.
The court denied the Department’s motion to dismiss under both cited rules: it denied the challenge based on exhaustion and denied the failure-to-state-a-claim challenge without prejudice. The court accepted Farah’s amended complaint, and Judge Tunheim stated that the Department could renew its motion against that amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Farah v. United States Department of Justice · No. 0:20-cv-00622
- John Tunheim
- Aug. 25, 2020
Background
Mohamed Abdihamid Farah submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the United States Department of Justice on October 1, 2019. He sought records concerning his criminal prosecution by the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota and requested expedited review because he needed the records to prepare a motion challenging his conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Department denied expedited review the same day and sent an acknowledgment of the request.
Farah said he received no further response. He called the Department attorney responsible for processing the request on January 23 and January 27, 2020, but the attorney did not return his messages. Farah filed this lawsuit on February 27, 2020, seeking the requested records, records that the court determined should not be withheld, or an order requiring the Department to issue a decision on the request. He also sought attorney fees and costs.
The Department maintained that it had sent Farah a response through an automated system on January 23, 2020, before he filed suit. After learning of the lawsuit, the Department sent Farah an email on March 3 attaching the text of the automated response, which made a partial release of the requested records. The Department then moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). After a hearing, Farah filed an amended complaint on August 6, 2020.
Analysis
Administrative exhaustion. FOIA generally requires a requester to complete the agency’s administrative appeal process before filing a lawsuit. Under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C), however, the requester is treated as having completed that process when the agency fails to comply with the applicable deadline for making a determination, unless the agency responds before suit is filed.
The court applied the reasoning that an agency may not insist on administrative exhaustion when it failed to respond on time. It found that Farah had constructively exhausted his administrative remedies. The court emphasized that Farah tried twice to learn the status of his request, that the Department did not return his calls, and that the Department’s alleged response was not effectively transmitted to him. The court also noted that Farah filed suit about a month after the alleged response, rather than so soon afterward that the filing appeared designed to avoid the administrative process. The court therefore denied the Department’s motion under Rule 12(b)(1).
Failure to state a claim. The Department alternatively argued that Farah’s complaint should be dismissed because he had received a partial release and did not identify an improper withholding or redaction. Farah agreed that an amendment was appropriate but opposed outright dismissal.
The court agreed that amendment was the most efficient way to resolve the issue. It denied the Department’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion without prejudice and accepted Farah’s amended complaint. The court stated that the Department could renew its motion practice against the amended complaint.
Disposition
The court ordered that the Department’s motion to dismiss was DENIED without prejudice. The ruling allowed the case to continue based on Farah’s amended complaint; it did not decide whether the Department improperly withheld or redacted any records.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.