Torres v. U.S. Department of Justice
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-00945
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Torres v. U.S. Department of Justice, Chief Judge Swain dismissed the freedom-of-information case for inadequate pleading but granted 30 days to amend.
Wilfredo Torres and the U.S. Department of Justice. Torres’s action was dismissed, but he was granted 30 days to file an amended complaint; his request for full public access to the complaint and permission to proceed without prepaying appeal fees were denied.
What happened
In Torres v. U.S. Department of Justice, Wilfredo Torres, representing himself, sued the U.S. Department of Justice under the Freedom of Information Act. He sought records about himself and alleged that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had improperly denied his request and administrative appeal.
The court held that Torres did not allege facts showing why the records were improperly withheld under the Freedom of Information Act. It therefore found that his complaint did not state a claim for relief.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action, but granted Torres 30 days to file an amended complaint. The court also denied his request to make the complaint fully accessible and denied him the ability to proceed without paying fees for an appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Torres v. U.S. Department of Justice · No. 1:23-cv-00945
- Laura Swain
- May 1, 2023
Background
Wilfredo Torres, proceeding pro se, meaning without a lawyer, sued the U.S. Department of Justice under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). He asked the court to order the Department of Justice to release the requested FOIA data. Torres alleged that he had been included on a federal terrorist list and described alleged raids, arrests, medical treatment, and other conduct that he attributed to government agents and others.
Torres alleged that he sent a FOIA request to the Federal Bureau of Investigation on September 15, 2022, seeking records, videos, emails, audio, telephone recordings, and other communications about him between January 1, 1995, and July 1, 2022, including records involving Maria Alcazar. He alleged that the FBI denied the request on September 20, 2022, and denied his administrative appeal on November 10, 2022.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a FOIA claim requires facts plausibly showing that the agency improperly withheld agency records. A requester must also reasonably describe the records sought and complete the agency’s administrative appeal process before seeking judicial review.
The court found Torres’s allegations insufficient because he alleged only that the FBI, an agency within the Department of Justice, denied his FOIA request and appeal. He did not allege why the agency denied the request or why the stated reasons for denial failed to comply with FOIA. The court therefore concluded that he failed to state a claim for relief under the statute.
The court also discussed Torres’s earlier related proceeding, in which it had explained similar pleading requirements and granted multiple opportunities to amend before dismissing that case. The court said that, because Torres was representing himself, it would nevertheless allow him another opportunity to amend in this action. The opinion also repeated a warning that future repetitive, frivolous, or nonmeritorious civil actions under FOIA could lead to restrictions on filing new cases without permission.
Disposition
The court dismissed this action for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It granted Torres 30 days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint repleading his FOIA claims. The court stated that, if he did not timely amend or show good cause for not doing so, it would enter judgment dismissing the action for the reason stated in the order.
The court denied Torres’s request to make the complaint fully accessible. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Torres permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.