Torres v. U.S. Department of Justice

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided December 6, 2021·No. 1:21-cv-08427·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK WILFREDO TORRES, Plaintiff, 21-CV-8427 (LTS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action invoking the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552. By order dated October 25, 2021, the Court directed Plaintiff to amend his complaint to address deficiencies in his original pleading. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 23, 2021. The Court has reviewed it and concludes that Plaintiff has not cured the deficiencies that the Court identified in his initial complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff thirty days’ leave to file a second amended complaint. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). BACKGROUND In his amended complaint, Plaintiff Wilfredo Torres makes the following allegations. On April 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed multiple requests with the Department of Justice (DOJ) under the

FOIA. (ECF 6 at 13.) He sought the following: (1) copies of the DOJ’s communications regarding Plaintiff’s civil actions under docket numbers 16-CV-23621 and 19-CV-63322; (2) information about whether the DOJ (or the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other federal agency) employs a man who appears in a certain photograph; (3) communications between Special Counsel Robert Mueller [who was appointed special counsel to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election], and Mueller’s “assistant Greg Andres to lawsuits SDNY 16CV2362, 19CV6332,” or Plaintiff’s other actions filed since 2015; and (4) copies of the DOJ’s communications with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the New York City Law Department, or “any lawyers” connected to Plaintiff’s cases under docket numbers16-CV-2362 and 19- CV-6332, and other actions Plaintiff has filed since 2015.

1 In Torres v. Bellevue South Assoc., LP, ECF 1:16-CV-2362, 392 (S.D.N.Y. June 18, 2020), Plaintiff argued that on April 28, 2016, agents of the CIA kidnapped him because of his inclusion on a federal terrorist list. On Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which the court granted, the court found that the undisputed facts showed that Plaintiff had spinal surgery on April 26, 2016, and had discharged himself against medical advice. (ECF 392 at 9.) NYU Hospital asked the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) to perform a wellness check on him, and FDNY employees accompanied by officers from the New York City Police Department went to Plaintiff’s apartment. Plaintiff’s surgical drain had been removed. Dr. Buckland determined that Plaintiff should be committed for medical evaluation. After x-rays and other medical and psychiatric evaluation, Plaintiff was released from the hospital on April 29, 2016. 2 In Torres v. City of New York, ECF 1:19-CV-6332 (S.D.N.Y.), Plaintiff asserts claims arising from entry into his apartment on December 13, 2018, and February 27, 2019, and his involuntary psychiatric commitment. The action remains pending. The operative complaints in the actions under docket numbers 19-CV-6332 (ECF 12) and 16-CV-2362 (ECF 291) do not include federal defendants, and no attorney from the DOJ represented any defendant in either action. (Id. at 13.) Plaintiff provides the following five numbers for his FOIA requests: “EMRUFOIA 040621; FOIA 2021 01078 DRH:SLE; FOIPA 149005-000; A2021-02615; A-2021-02617.” (Id.) It is unclear which of these five numbers corresponds to any one of his four requests. Plaintiff does not plead any facts about the timing or content of the DOJ’s response to his

FOIA inquiry other than to say that the agency has “failed to produce the requested documents.” (Id. at 14.) On August 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed appeals “A-2021-02615 and A-2021-02617.” (Id.) It is unclear what response, if any, Plaintiff received on his appeal, but as of November 23, 2021, when Plaintiff filed his amended complaint, the DOJ “has not produced the documents.” (Id.) In addition to the allegations regarding his FOIA requests, Plaintiff repeats the allegations made in his prior actions – about various entries into his home and his forcible commitment – and contends that as a result of Defendant’s actions, he has suffered “PTSD [and] permanent damage to spinal surgery requiring treatment.” (Id. at 14.) Plaintiff names the United States Department of Justice as the sole defendant.

DISCUSSION As set forth in the Court’s October 25, 2021 order, the FOIA provides members of the public a right of access to some information from federal executive agencies. 5 U.S.C. § 552. Federal courts have jurisdiction to enforce this right if a requester shows that “an agency has (1) ‘improperly;’ (2) ‘withheld;’ (3) ‘agency records.’” Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 150 (1980) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B)). “Unless each of these criteria is met, a district court lacks jurisdiction to devise remedies to force an agency to comply with the FOIA’s disclosure requirements.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 142 (1989); see also Main St. Legal Servs., Inc. v. Nat' Sec. Council, 811 F.3d 542, 566 (2d Cir. 2016) (noting that the Supreme Court, in Tax Analysts, “appears to have used the term [jurisdiction] in the sense of remedial power rather than subject-matter jurisdiction”). A FOIA request must reasonably describe the records of interest. See, e.g., Robert v. Cent. Intel. Agency, No. 02-CV-6788, 2018 WL 1598611, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2018)

(“Plaintiff’s requests for ‘all files and/or reports’ on ‘military or non-military reports of angels and persons dressed in white’ are not specific enough for an employee of the agency to find all files regarding this information with a ‘reasonable amount of effort’”). Moreover, an agency need only conduct a reasonable search of its own files. Jones- Edwards v. Appeal Bd. of Nat.

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

Torres v. U.S. Department of Justice, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Torres v. U.S. Department of Justice (Torres v. U.S. Department of Justice) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
United States Department of Justice v. Tax Analysts
492 U.S. 136 (Supreme Court, 1989)
Ruotolo v. City of New York
514 F.3d 184 (Second Circuit, 2008)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
McKevitt v. Mueller
689 F. Supp. 2d 661 (S.D. New York, 2010)
Robert v. Department of Justice
193 F. App'x 8 (Second Circuit, 2006)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)