Skip to main content

Leytman v. United States, No. 18-01794, 2024 WL 4350693 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2024) (Morrison, J.)

Date

Leytman v. United States, No. 18-01794, 2024 WL 4350693 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2024) (Morrison, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning plaintiff

Disposition:  Denying plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of court’s grant of defendant’s motion to dismiss

  • Litigation Considerations, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies:  The court holds that “Plaintiff has not shown that he is entitled to reconsideration of this Court’s dismissal of his FOIA claim.”  “He provides no arguments or assertions of fact overlooked by this Court when it dismissed the FOIA claim as unexhausted based on the facts as alleged in the Amended Complaint.”  “In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges only that he requested records from the TSA under FOIA, that FOIA’s response was unsatisfactory (TSA ‘came up with nothing’), that TSA mocked FOIA by sending Plaintiff back a copy of his request for information, with nothing more, and by ‘swearing that’s all what they have (or can release?).’”  “As pleaded in the Amended Complaint and as described in the Motion, even considering the new facts Plaintiff raises for the first time in the Motion, Plaintiff has failed to establish that he exhausted his administrative remedies under FOIA as required before filing suit.”  “In the Motion, Plaintiff introduces the new fact that when he requested information under FOIA from the TSA, ‘the agency failed to timely respond to [his] request.’” “This allegation is not properly before the Court because it appears for the first time in the Motion. And even if this Court were to consider it, Plaintiff’s allegation still falls short of establishing exhaustion because it is conclusory.”  “Plaintiff summarily states only that he exhausted his administrative remedies because the TSA ‘failed to timely respond’ and ‘later [he] received the final formal denial as well.’”  “Plaintiff does not allege that the TSA failed to make any response to his request within twenty days of receipt, as required to state a claim under the statute, nor does he allege that he appealed the formal denial that he received before filing suit.”  “Though courts should ‘liberally construe pleadings and briefs submitted by pro se litigants, reading such submissions to raise the strongest arguments they suggest,’ . . . courts ‘cannot invent factual allegations that [a pro se plaintiff] has not pled.’”  “Even interpreted liberally, the Motion does not contain facts from which the Court can conclude that Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies under FOIA.”

    “The Court notes that nothing in this order precludes Plaintiff from submitting a new FOIA request to the TSA.”
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Litigation Considerations, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Updated November 15, 2024