Mabie v. United States Marshals Service et al

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, denying 23 MOTION to Reinstate filed by William Mabie and 15 MOTION to Reinstate filed by William Mabie. The Court CONSTRUES Mabie's statement as a notice of appeal of this order and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to docket that appeal as of today's date. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 9/14/2018. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
WILLIAM MABIE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 18-cv-1276-JPG-SCW

UNITED STATES MARSHAL’S SERVICE,
ALTON CITY JAIL and SAINT LOUIS
METROPOLITAN POLICE,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff William Mabie’s motions (Docs. 15 &
23) to reinstate two parties—the Alton City Jail (“Alton Jail”) and the St. Louis Metropolitan
Police Department (“St. Louis PD”)—dismissed by District Judge Robert L. Miller, sitting by
designation in the Southern District of Indiana, before he transferred the case to this district
(Doc. 10). Judge Miller dismissed the parties from this action under the federal Freedom of
Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, on the grounds that they are not “agencies” subject to
the FOIA as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. § 551(1). Mabie does not really argue that the Alton
Jail and the St. Louis PD are bona fide federal agencies, but he argues that they should be
deemed federal agencies because of their connections with the federal government.
The FOIA only applies to federal agencies. It defines an “agency” by reference to 5
U.S.C. § 551(1) (“‘agency’ means each authority of the Government of the United States. . .”
with certain enumerated exceptions), and it specifically includes within this definition “any
executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled
corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the
Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(f).

Entities like state or local governments that do not fall within this definition are not “agencies”
subject to the FOIA. See Lathrop v. Juneau & Assocs., Inc. P.C., 220 F.R.D. 322, 327 (S.D. Ill.
2004) (noting “the Federal FOIA does not apply to state governments”); Jones v. City of
Indianapolis, 216 F.R.D. 440, 443 (S.D. Ind. 2003) (“The term ‘agency’ in the FOIA does not
apply to municipal agencies such as [Indianapolis Police Department] or its officers.”); McClain
v. United States Dep’t of Justice, No. 97 C 0385, 1999 WL 759505, *2 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 1, 1999)
(state agencies not subject to the FOIA), aff'd, 17 Fed. App’x 471 (7th Cir. 2001); Moreno v.
Curry, No. 06-11277, 2007 WL 4467580, at *1 (5th Cir. Dec. 20, 2007) (“FOIA, by its terms,
does not apply to state or municipal agencies.”). It is clear that the Alton Jail and the St. Louis
PD do not fall within the definition of “agency” in the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(f).
Mabie suggests that the Alton Jail and the St. Louis PD can be deemed to be federal
agencies because of their connections with the federal government. Specifically, Mabie asserts
that Detective John Anderson of the St. Louis PD has sworn to being a federal agent. He also
asserts that the St. Louis PD receives federal funding, makes federal arrests and is involved in
federal prosecutions. He further asserts that the Alton Jail solely houses federal detainees
pursuant to a contract with the United States Marshals Service, a federal agency. However,
simply receiving funds from or working with the federal government does not convert an entity
into a federal agency for purposes of the FOIA. Forsham v. Harris, 445 U.S. 169, 170, 180
(1980) (grantees not converted to government agencies “absent extensive, detailed, and virtually
day-to-day supervision” by federal government). As a consequence, state or local governments
are not subject to the FOIA just because they receive grants or other funds from the federal
government or work with the federal government.
Mabie also asserts that the St. Louis PD has agreed that it is subject to the FOIA and cites

2

to an Eighth Circuit case, Mabie v. United States, No. 14-3449, in support of that assertion. The
Court has reviewed the docket in that case, a motion for leave to file a second or successive
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and has found no evidence of any agreement that the St. Louis
PD is subject to the FOIA. Nor has he pointed to any caselaw suggesting an entity’s consent
could actually subject it to the FOIA.
In sum, Mabie has alleged no facts plausibly suggesting that the Alton Jail or the St.
Louis PD are, or should be deemed to be by virtue of detailed federal oversight, federal agencies
subject to the FOIA. Consequently, Judge Miller was correct to dismiss them from this FOIA
action. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Mabie’s motions to reinstate those defendants (Docs.
15 & 23).
The Court further notes that Mabie states in his first motion to reinstate parties,
“SHOULD COURT FAIL TO REINSTATE [St. Louis PD] AND [Alton Jail], THEN
CONSIDER THIS MY NOTICE OF APPEAL” (Doc. 15). Since the Court has declined to
reinstate the St. Louis PD and the Alton Jail, the Court CONSTRUES Mabie’s statement as a
notice of appeal of this order and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to docket that appeal as of
today’s date. However, because this order is not properly appealable before the conclusion of
the entire case, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 & 1292, this Court does not lose jurisdiction to proceed on
the remaining claims in this case, which it will do. See Gilda Indus., Inc. v. United States, 511
F.3d 1348, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (finding the appeal of a non-appealable order does not deprive
the district court of jurisdiction to continue with the case).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 14, 2018
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE
3