Skip to main content

Acosta v. FBI, No. 12-1578(JEB), 2013 WL 1633068 (D.D.C. Apr. 17, 2013) (Boasberg, J.)

Re: Records pertaining to certain criminal case Disposition: Granting defendant's motion to dismiss with respect to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Drug Enforcement Administration; denying defendant's motion to dismiss with respect to Executive Office for United States Attorneys and FBI
  • Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies:  The court finds that for certain defendants the plaintiff was required to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit.  The response times for ICE and DEA did not exceed the twenty days permitted under the statute.  In those instances, plaintiff never filed an administrative appeal, therefore dismissal of ICE and DEA was appropriate.  The court denies the defendant's motion to dismiss for the actions taken by EOUSA and the FBI.  A "Requester is required to administratively appeal [a] 'determination' before bringing suit.  But if the agency has not issued its 'determination' within the required time period, the requester may bring suit directly in federal district court without exhausting administrative appeal remedies."  Here, EOUSA referred records to the FBI more than eight months after the initial receipt by EOUSA and the FBI's response came another three months later.  In accordance with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. FEC, No. 12-5004, 2013 WL 1296289 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 2, 2013), "such lapse waives any requirement plaintiff had to exhaust his administrative appeals." 
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Litigation Considerations, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Updated August 6, 2014