Rivera v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al

Filing 11

ORDER Plaintiff's March 30, 2012 Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 8 ) is granted to the extent that the Court has reviewed Plaintiff's claims. Because the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims, the Court declines to reopen this action. Plaintiff's March 30, 2012 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 9 ) is denied as moot. This case must remain closed. Signed by Senior Judge Robert C Broomfield on 5/11/2012.(KMG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10

Angel Rivera,
Plaintiff,

11
12

vs.

13
Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al.,
14
15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 11-2072-PHX-RCB (MEA)
ORDER

16
17

Plaintiff Angel Rivera, who is confined in the New Jersey State Prison in Trenton,

18

New Jersey, filed a pro se Complaint under the Freedom of Information Act. In an October

19

28, 2011 Order, the Court directed Plaintiff to pay the filing fee or file an Application to

20

Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On December 2, 2011, Plaintiff filed an incomplete Application

21

to Proceed. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to pay the fee or file a completed Application

22

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff failed to file a completed Application within the 30-

23

day deadline and, on February 27, 2012, the Clerk of Court entered a Judgment of Dismissal

24

for failure to comply with a Court order.

25

On March 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 8) and a

26

completed Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In his Motion for Reconsideration,

27

Plaintiff states that he was unable to obtain a copy of his inmate trust account statement

28

1

within the required time and asks that the Court reconsider dismissal of this action. The

2

Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider in that Court will consider whether this case

3

should be reopened.

4

In his Complaint, Plaintiff sues the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), the

5

Office of Information Policy, and the Untied States Department of Justice under the Freedom

6

of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 522. Plaintiff requested that the FBI provide him

7

with all information referencing his name, all information referencing his criminal case in

8

this Court, and all information regarding any Interstate Compact Agreements which reference

9

Plaintiff’s name. The FBI denied Plaintiff’s requests. Plaintiff appealed to the Director of

10

the Office of Information Policy, who denied his appeal.

11

The Freedom of Information Act, part of the Administrative Procedure Act, requires

12

that agencies make certain information available to the public upon request. See 5 U.S.C.

13

§552 et seq. The United States district courts have jurisdiction to order an “agency” to

14

produce “agency records improperly withheld” as follows:

15
16
17

(B) On complaint, the district court of the United States in the district in
which the complainant resides, or has his principal place of business, or in
which the agency records are situated, or in the District of Columbia, has
jurisdiction to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order
the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the
complainant. . .

18
19

5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(B)(1977).

20

Plaintiff resides in New Jersey, not Arizona, and is seeking records from federal

21

agencies located in the District of Columbia. Although Plaintiff seeks, in part, records that

22

reference his criminal conviction in this state, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that any FBI

23

records of a related investigation would be kept in Arizona. Further, Plaintiff’s initial request

24

and appeal were addressed to the agencies at their District of Columbia addresses, and the

25

responses Plaintiff received were issued from the District of Columbia offices. Accordingly,

26

this Court does not have jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s FOIA claim.

27
28

Because this Court’s lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims, the Court will not
reopen this action.
-2-

1
2

IT IS ORDERED:
(1)

Plaintiff’s March 30, 2012 Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 8) is granted to

3

the extent that the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s claims. Because the Court lacks jurisdiction

4

over Plaintiff’s claims, the Court declines to reopen this action.

5
6

(2)

Plaintiff’s March 30, 2012 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 9)

is denied as moot.

7

(3)

This case must remain closed.

8

DATED this 11th day of May, 2012.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-