Rudometkin v. Wormuth, No. 22-1968, 2025 WL 885098 (D.D.C. Mar. 21, 2025) (Chutkan, J.)

Rudometkin v. Wormuth, No. 22-1968, 2025 WL 885098 (D.D.C. Mar. 21, 2025) (Chutkan, J.)

Re: Requests for certain military service records concerning plaintiff

Disposition:  Granting in part and denying in part defendant’s motion to dismiss

• Litigation Considerations, Pleadings:  The court finds that “[a]lthough Plaintiff brings this action against [an individual defendant] in her official capacity as Secretary of the Army, the court’s jurisdiction under FOIA is ‘limited to enjoining agency noncompliance.’”  “A FOIA claim cannot be brought against an individual federal official.”  “Given the liberal pleading standards for pro se litigants, the court will construe Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint as a FOIA action against the U.S. Army.”
   
• Litigation Considerations:  The court relates that plaintiff does not dispute several of defendant’s responses and agrees to dismiss certain issues.
   
• Litigation Considerations, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies:  The court relates that “Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s request to the U.S. Army Office of the Judge Advocate General for [one third party’s] disciplinary records fails to adequately allege (1) an improper withholding, and (2) that he administratively exhausted the request.”  “Drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, the court disagrees.”  “In sum, Plaintiff alleges that (1) he submitted a FOIA request for all disciplinary records concerning [the third party], (2) Defendant failed to disclose records responsive to that request, and (3) Defendant improperly withheld responsive material under Exemption 5 and the deliberative process privilege.” “Taken together, these allegations sufficiently state a FOIA claim.”  “Defendant remains free to offer evidence that it properly withheld records subject to Plaintiff’s FOIA request and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  “At the pleadings stage, however, Plaintiff has ‘satisfied the “quite straightforward” and “relatively easy” requirement of “plead[ing] the . . . elements of a FOIA claim.”’”  “Defendant alternatively argues that ‘Plaintiff fails to plead facts sufficient to plausibly establish that he has administratively exhausted such claims.’” “Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that he exhausted the appeal process for his FOIA request for [the third party’s] disciplinary records.”  “Plaintiff alleges that he appealed that determination on May 26, 2020 and Defendant issued an administrative appeal decision on June 29, 2020.”  “Because a separate declaration from Defendant’s Office of General Counsel suggested that Plaintiff had not adequately appealed the request for [the third party’s] disciplinary records, he asked Defendant to confirm that the June 29, 2020 administrative appeal decision addressed that FOIA request.”  “Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to respond to his requests for clarification.” “In these circumstances, and construing the allegations in Plaintiff’s favor, he sufficiently alleges that he appealed Defendant’s adverse determination and either obtained Defendant’s final decision or Defendant failed to respond to his appeal within the statutory mandated time.”  “Either way, Plaintiff plausibly pleads exhaustion of administrative remedies.” “To the extent Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to exhaust because he did not comply with its appeal rules or procedures, exhaustion does not bar judicial review in those circumstances.” “Plaintiff gave Defendant ‘the opportunity to reconsider its position and bring its expertise to bear’ before seeking judicial review, . . . even requesting clarification on Defendant’s appeal decision . . . .”  “Defendant’s failure to respond ‘manifests that the administrative process had run its course.’”  “Therefore, exhaustion does not prevent judicial review.”
  
  “Defendant also moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim regarding his request for his former defense lawyer’s emails, arguing that Plaintiff fails to allege that he submitted a FOIA request for those records.”  “On this count, the court agrees.”  “Plaintiff alleges that he ‘attempted to request attorney-client communications from [his] military defense counsel . . . .’”  “But Plaintiff provides no correspondence or documents to corroborate that he made a FOIA request.”  “The court will therefore grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss this claim.”