Checksfield v. IRS, No. 21-1180, 2022 WL 2713499 (N.D.N.Y. July 13, 2022) (Suddaby, C.J.)

Checksfield v. IRS, No. 21-1180, 2022 WL 2713499 (N.D.N.Y. July 13, 2022) (Suddaby, C.J.)

Re:  Plaintiff’s alleged request for certain business records

Disposition:  Granting defendant’s motion to dismiss

• Litigation Considerations, Pleadings:  “[T]he Court is satisfied that it has subject-matter jurisdiction of a claim asserted under the FOIA.”  “Despite Plaintiff’s Complaint alleging that he brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in construing his Complaint liberally and providing the special solicitude typically afforded to pro se pleadings, the Court finds that Plaintiff attempts to assert a FOIA claim that provides the Court with subject-matter jurisdiction.”  However, “the Court grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).”  “Plaintiff’s Complaint, which the Court liberally construes as attempting to claim that Defendant violated FOIA in denying his request for documents, fails to state a claim for two reasons:  (1) Plaintiff failed to plead factual allegations plausibly suggesting exhaustion of his administrative remedies; and (2) Plaintiff failed to plead factual allegations plausibly suggesting that he submitted a proper FOIA request, and that Defendant improperly withheld the requested records.”  “Plaintiff fails to allege any factual support regarding whether he made a proper FOIA request, what records he requested, when he made the FOIA request, and how Defendant responded (i.e., the reasons for the alleged denial of Plaintiff’s request).”  However, the court finds that “it is possible that the defects related to Plaintiff’s FOIA claim (i.e., whether he exhausted his administrative remedies and whether he can provide the factual allegations regarding his denied FOIA request) are ‘merely formal,’ rather than substantive.”  Therefore, “the Court finds that it would not be futile to permit Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint . . . .”