MARJENHOFF v. PARSLEY

Filing 7

ENTRY Discussing Selected Matters - In light of the circumstances recited in Part II of this Entry, the plaintiff shall have through June 7, 2012, in which to supplement his complaint by setting forth a basis for the exercise of jurisdiction over his claim. The plaintiffs motion requesting the courts assistance in serving process 6 is denied without prejudice because in the particular circumstances outlined above there is no reason at present to issue or serve process on the defendant. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/14/2012. (copy to Plaintiff, along with copy of Complaint and Docket Sheet as instructed, via US Mail) (JKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

BRUCE MARJENHOFF,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DENNIS PARSLEY, Chief of Police
Bedford, Indiana,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12-cv-252-JMS-TAB

Entry Discussing Selected Matters
I.
ADistrict judges have ample authority to dismiss frivolous or transparently
defective suits spontaneously, and thus save everyone time and legal expense. This
is so even when the plaintiff has paid all fees for filing and service.@ Hoskins v.
Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761, 762 (7th Cir. 2003). This appears to be an appropriate cause
in which to use authority.
II.
The plaintiff has filed an action pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act,
5 U.S.C. § 552 (“FOIA”), seeking records from the Bloomington, Indiana Police
Department (“BPD”). The sole defendant in the action is BPD Chief Parsley.
The central purpose of the FOIA is to “ensure an informed citizenry . . .
[which is] needed to check against corruption and to hold the governors accountable
to the governed.” NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242 (1978).
Under the statute, “any member of the public is entitled to have access to any
record maintained by a federal agency, unless that record is exempt from disclosure
under one of the Act's nine exemptions.” A. Michael's Piano, Inc. v. FTC, 18 F.3d
138, 143 (2d Cir. 1994).

The FOIA confers jurisdiction on the district courts “to enjoin the agency
from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records
improperly withheld.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B); see U.S. Dep't of Justice v. Tax
Analysts, 492 U.S. 136, 142 (1989). By its own terms, “agency” under FOIA means
“each authority of the Government of the United States, whether or not it is within
or subject to review by another agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 551(1). “[I]t is beyond question
that FOIA applies only to federal and not to state agencies.” Grand Cent. P'ship,
Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473, 484 (2d Cir. 1999) (citing Harshbarger, Philip Morris,
Inc. v. Harshbarger, 122 F.3d 58, 83 (1st Cir. 1997); see also St. Michael's
Convalescent Hosp. v. State of California, 643 F.2d 1369, 1373 (9th Cir.
1981)(definition of “agency” under FOIA “does not encompass state agencies or
bodies”).
III.
In light of the circumstances recited in Part II of this Entry, the plaintiff
shall have through June 7, 2012, in which to supplement his complaint by
setting forth a basis for the exercise of jurisdiction over his claim.
IV.
The plaintiff’s motion requesting the court’s assistance in serving process [6]
is denied without prejudice because in the particular circumstances outlined above
there is no reason at present to issue or serve process on the defendant. If a
plausible claim for relief is stated, however, the court will reconsider this ruling on
its own motion and in doing so would direct that the action proceed.
V.
To facilitate the plaintiff’s ability to respond to the directions in Part III of
this Entry, a copy of the complaint and a copy of the docket sheet shall be included
with the plaintiff’s copy of this Entry.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

05/14/2012
Date: __________________

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Note to Clerk: Processing this document requires actions in addition to docketing and distribution.

Distribution:
BRUCE MARJENHOFF
16 Geer Road
Sandia Park, NM 87047