Coleman v. Baird

District of Columbia

Coleman v. Baird

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedJune 26, 2014

DocketCivil Action No. 2014-1084

StatusPublished

This text of Coleman v. Baird (Coleman v. Baird) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coleman v. Baird, (D.D.C. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Clﬂfk, U,s_ District

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Bankruptcy court?" John Joseph Coleman, ) ) Plaintiff. ) )

v. ) Civil Action No. .— ) Honorable Judge Ms. Brand er al., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the Court to screen and dismiss a prisoner’s complaint upon a determination that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Plaintiff is a Missouri state prisoner incarcerated in Jefferson City, Missouri. See Coleman v. Missouri, No. 4:10-CV-636-TIA, 2010 WL 2010514 (E.D.Mo. May 19, 2010). This action is captioned “Federal Freedom of Information Act Complaint,” but plaintiff names individuals in Salem, Missouri, who are not subject to suit under the FOIA. See Judicial Watch v. US. Secret Serv., 726 F.3d. 208, 214 (DC. Cir. 2013) (“Under FOIA, agencies must make requested records available ‘to any person,’ unless one of nine speciﬁc exemptions applies[,] [and] [t]he Act grants federal district courts jurisdiction ‘to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant.’ ”) (quoting 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(3)(A), (a)(4)(B)); see also Johnson v. Exec. Qﬂice for US. Attorneys, 310 F.3d 771, 777 (DC. Cir.

2002) (“[T]he comprehensiveness of F OIA precludes the creation of a Bivens remedy” against 1

individuals for alleged constitutional violations) (citing Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agentst 403 US. 388 (1971)). In addition, plaintiff has not alleged that he made a FOIA request to a federal agency, and he cannot obtain the requested relief to compel DNA testing at the government’s expense of “the blood on the gun . . . and [] ﬁngerprinting,” Compl. at 5, under the

FOIA. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: June ,2014

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Clﬂfk, U,s_ District

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Bankruptcy court?" John Joseph Coleman, ) ) Plaintiff. ) )

v. ) Civil Action No. .— ) Honorable Judge Ms. Brand er al., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the Court to screen and dismiss a prisoner’s complaint upon a determination that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Plaintiff is a Missouri state prisoner incarcerated in Jefferson City, Missouri. See Coleman v. Missouri, No. 4:10-CV-636-TIA, 2010 WL 2010514 (E.D.Mo. May 19, 2010). This action is captioned “Federal Freedom of Information Act Complaint,” but plaintiff names individuals in Salem, Missouri, who are not subject to suit under the FOIA. See Judicial Watch v. US. Secret Serv., 726 F.3d. 208, 214 (DC. Cir. 2013) (“Under FOIA, agencies must make requested records available ‘to any person,’ unless one of nine speciﬁc exemptions applies[,] [and] [t]he Act grants federal district courts jurisdiction ‘to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant.’ ”) (quoting 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(3)(A), (a)(4)(B)); see also Johnson v. Exec. Qﬂice for US. Attorneys, 310 F.3d 771, 777 (DC. Cir.

2002) (“[T]he comprehensiveness of F OIA precludes the creation of a Bivens remedy” against 1

individuals for alleged constitutional violations) (citing Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agentst 403 US. 388 (1971)). In addition, plaintiff has not alleged that he made a FOIA request to a federal agency, and he cannot obtain the requested relief to compel DNA testing at the government’s expense of “the blood on the gun . . . and [] ﬁngerprinting,” Compl. at 5, under the

FOIA. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: June ,2014

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Coleman v. Baird, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-baird-dcd-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack