Carzoglio v. Klimek, No. 24-2654, 2024 WL 3346020 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2024) (Swain, C.J.)

Carzoglio v. Klimek, No. 24-2654, 2024 WL 3346020 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2024) (Swain, C.J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning certain police chief

Disposition:  Dismissing certain claims; transferring certain claims to the District Court for the District of Columbia

• Litigation Considerations, Pleadings; Procedural Requirements, Entities Subject to the FOIA:  The court relates that “Plaintiff brings this action against [an] AUSA . . . and . . . an employee of this court.”  “These two defendants cannot be sued under FOIA because they are both individuals and, as to [the court employee], because he is an employee of ‘the courts of the United States,’ which cannot be sued in a FOIA action.”  “Accordingly, the Court dismisses the FOIA claims as brought against these two individuals for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.”

• Litigation Considerations, Pleadings & Venue:  The court holds that, “[a]lthough Plaintiff cannot assert his FOIA claims against [three other individuals], because those claims are brought against individuals, the Court declines to dismiss the claims against these defendants.”  “The Court leaves to the transferee court the decision as to how to address the claims brought against these defendants and whether they may be construed as brought against a federal agency.”  “The Court concludes that venue for Plaintiff’s FOIA claims is proper in the District of Columbia for three reasons.”  “First, EOUSA, which is located in Washington D.C., rendered the final agency decision concluding that FOIA did not require a search of the records that Plaintiff sought in his request.”  “Second, the District of Columbia is a proper venue for any FOIA action.”  “Third, it is unclear where Plaintiff resides for the purposes of venue.”