Calvino v. F.B.I.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-00468
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Calvino v. F.B.I., Judge McMahon dismissed the pro se Freedom of Information Act case without prejudice because Calvino did not allege completing the required agency appeal.
Ernest Calvino Jr.'s FOIA request and the FBI; the dismissal left Calvino able to file a new action after completing the required administrative process.
What happened
In Calvino v. F.B.I., Ernest Calvino Jr. asked for information about an investigation and complaints he said he had filed. He sued the Federal Bureau of Investigation under the Freedom of Information Act, a federal law allowing access to certain agency records.
The court explained that a requester generally must first ask the agency for the records and complete the agency’s appeal process before suing. Calvino did not allege that he had completed those steps, so the court dismissed his claim without prejudice, allowing him to file a new action after exhausting the administrative process.
Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.
The detailed version
- Calvino v. F.B.I. · No. 1:20-cv-00468
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 27, 2020
Background
Ernest Calvino Jr. brought the action against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), proceeding without a lawyer and asking to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. The court had granted that request before reviewing the complaint.
Calvino alleged that the FBI violated his right to “freedom of information.” His allegations sought information related to an investigation involving him and complaints he said he had filed. He wanted copies to provide to people who could support him with legal services.
Legal standard
When a person proceeds without prepaying filing fees, the court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court must read a complaint filed without a lawyer generously and interpret it to raise the strongest claims suggested by the allegations.
The court treated Calvino’s allegations as potentially asserting a claim under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). FOIA allows members of the public to seek certain records from federal executive agencies. A court can enforce that right when an agency has improperly withheld agency records.
Exhaustion requirement
FOIA generally requires a requester to complete the agency’s administrative process before seeking judicial review. The requester first submits a records request. If the agency denies the request, the requester may appeal the denial to the agency’s head within the statutory period. If the agency does not comply with applicable deadlines, the requester may be treated as having completed the administrative process.
Ruling
The court said Calvino did not allege that he had exhausted his administrative remedies before filing suit. The court therefore dismissed the FOIA claim without prejudice to Calvino’s filing a new action after completing the required administrative process.
The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Calvino and record service on the docket. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.