Platsky v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

Background

Henry Platsky filed this self-represented action against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). He asserted a claim under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which allows people to request records from federal agencies. He also claimed that the FBI violated due process by placing his name on a terrorist watch list that it allegedly shared with the New York Police Department, New York Fire Department, and Emergency Medical Services in the 1990s.

Platsky said he had obtained a 200-page FBI file concerning his activities from 1965 through 1971 as a member of the Marxist-Leninist Workers World Party. He connected various encounters with police vehicles and emergency services in the 1990s and later years to his belief that his name had been placed on an FBI list. The opinion states that he had previously filed related lawsuits and that those cases were dismissed.

Platsky submitted a FOIA request to the FBI on July 17, 2018, asking whether his name appeared on watch lists used at a meeting between FBI representatives and three New York City emergency services in the 1990s. The FBI first referred him to the National Archives and Records Administration, then denied the request on October 31, 2018. The FBI’s Administrative Appeals Staff later affirmed that denial and told him he could seek review in federal district court.

Court’s analysis

Because Platsky was permitted to proceed without paying filing fees, the court screened the complaint under the federal statute governing such cases. That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, insufficiently pleaded, seek relief from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also explained that self-represented complaints are read generously but still must contain enough factual detail to make a claim plausible.

Due-process claim

The court dismissed the due-process claim for lack of standing. Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a court decision would remedy the injury.

The court concluded that Platsky’s allegations about routine traffic encounters with police vehicles and emergency vehicles did not plausibly show that the FBI or New York City agencies were monitoring him because he was on a watch list. As a result, he had not shown a concrete injury from being placed on such a list and could not pursue the due-process claim.

FOIA claim and service

The court did not decide whether the FBI lawfully denied Platsky’s FOIA request. Instead, it directed that the summons and complaint be served on the FBI through the U.S. Marshals Service. The court extended the service period to 90 days after the summons was issued and instructed the Clerk of Court to prepare the required service paperwork.

Disposition

The court dismissed Platsky’s due-process claim for lack of standing. It directed service of the complaint on the FBI concerning the FOIA claim, which was the only claim allowed to proceed.