Darnell Moon v. Federal Bureau of Prison

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Duane Benton, Morris S. Arnold and Bobby E. Shepherd (PUBLISHED); Granting [4350059-2] motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis filed by Appellant Mr. Darnell Wesly Moon. [4393066] [15-3751]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-3751
___________________________
Darnell Wesly Moon
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Federal Bureau of Prisons
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau
____________
Submitted: April 14, 2016
Filed: April 28, 2016
[Published]
____________
Before BENTON, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Darnell Moon, formerly a federal inmate at the United States Penitentiary at
Terre Haute, Indiana, appeals the district court’s preservice dismissal of his action
seeking relief under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552. We
grant his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Appellate Case: 15-3751

Page: 1

Date Filed: 04/28/2016 Entry ID: 4393066

While we agree that a litigant must exhaust administrative remedies before
bringing a FOIA action in federal court, see Elnashar v. United States Dep’t of Justice,
446 F.3d 792, 796 (8th Cir. 2006) (exhaustion of administrative remedies is
prerequisite to bringing suit under FOIA), we conclude that because FOIA is silent as
to whether exhaustion is a pleading requirement or an affirmative defense, see 5
U.S.C. § 552, the argument of non-exhaustion is an affirmative defense rather than a
pleading requirement, see Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910, 919 (2007) (if an act is silent
as to whether exhaustion should be pled by plaintiff or treated as affirmative defense,
general practice under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dictates that exhaustion
should be treated as affirmative defense). Thus, Mr. Moon was not required to plead
exhaustion in his complaint.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-3751

Page: 2

Date Filed: 04/28/2016 Entry ID: 4393066