The Ninth Circuit affirms the decision of the district court which dismissed plaintiffs' FOIA claims for a failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Holding: Affirming the district court's dismissal of FOIA claims brought against individuals on the basis that plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Fifth Circuit concludes that plaintiffs' "argument that the appellees refused to provide copies of investigatory documents in violation of the FOIA fails to state a claim because those federal provisions apply only to documents under the control of federal agencies."ĭrake v. Holding: Affirming the judgment of the district court, which dismissed plaintiffs' complaint, including their FOIA claim, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. the district court properly declined to substitute the D.C. government is not an 'agency' for purposes of FOIA. because neither creates a cause of action against individuals, only against agencies." Moreover, "ecause the D.C. government employees, concluding that "the district court properly determined that appellant could not sustain a claim under either the. Circuit affirms the district court's decision to dismiss FOIA claims against individually-named D.C. Holding: Affirming orders of the district court which dismissed individually-named District of Columbia employee-defendants, and dismissed claims against federal defendants based on plaintiff's failure to state a FOIA claim where he did not allege an improper withholding of agency records. Circuit affirms the district court's decision that the White House Counsel's Office is not an "agency" subject to the FOIA and finds that "ontrary to appellant's argument, the Office's status under FOIA does not vary based on the specific records request at issue."Įarle v.
Holding: Affirming the district court's decision that the White House Counsel's Office is not an "agency" subject to the FOIA. Circuit affirms the decision of the district court to dismiss claims brought against individuals and to substitute the IRS as the sole proper party defendant because the FOIA "only authorizes suits against certain executive branch 'agencies,' not individuals." Holding: Affirming order of the district court dismissing individual defendants from the case and substituting the IRS as the proper party and its finding that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and denying plaintiff's request to strike defendant's filings. The Sixth Circuit states, the "FOIA does not apply to state entities."įlaherty v. Holding: Affirming the district court's judgment dismissing plaintiffs' claims under Federal Rules of Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
0 kommentar(er)
