Soliman v. Threat Screening Ctr., No. 24-634, 2025 WL 958313 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2025) (Alikhan, J.)

Soliman v. Threat Screening Ctr., No. 24-634, 2025 WL 958313 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2025) (Alikhan, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning plaintiff

Disposition:  Granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment

• Procedural Requirements, Entities Subject to the FOIA:  The court relates that “[plaintiff] . . . repeatedly assert[s] that ‘[t]he [Threat Screening Center (“TSC”)] is a separate agency with separate obligations to meet the requirements set forth in FOIA, independent from the FBI[ ].’”  “But [plaintiff] cites no direct support for this contention.”  “Instead, [plaintiff] argues that because the TSC has independent duties and employees, it must be an independent agency required to process its own FOIA requests.”  “Unfortunately for [plaintiff], that is not how FOIA works.”  “The Department of Justice has designated the FBI – writ large – as a component, and its RIDS, Records Management Division, as the office responsible for processing all FOIA requests directed at the FBI and its subcomponents.”  “While the Department of Justice could have designated particular branches or subcomponents of the FBI as ‘components’ for purposes of FOIA, as it did with, for example, the Department of Justice’s Office of the Solicitor General, . . . it did not.”  “The consequence of the Department of Justice’s decision to structure its FOIA process in this way is that any request directed to a subcomponent of the FBI – like the TSC – is properly routed to and processed by the FBI’s RIDS.”
   
• Litigation Considerations, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies:  “Having concluded that the TSC is part of the FBI, the court looks at the FBI’s handling of [plaintiff’s] October 2021 and June 2022 FOIA requests concerning the TSC.”  “While the parties did not brief administrative exhaustion, the court concludes that [plaintiff] has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.” “[Plaintiff] submitted two FOIA requests in October 2021:  one to the TSC and one to RIDS.”  “After the TSC received [plaintiff’s] October 2021 FOIA request, it forwarded the request to RIDS for processing.”  “RIDS consolidated the two requests into one . . . and it issued a response in February 2022 . . .”  “[Plaintiff] filed an administrative appeal of the FBI’s decision . . . and the Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy affirmed the decision on July 18, 2022 . . . .”  “That was sufficient for [plaintiff] to exhaust his administrative remedies concerning the combined October 2021 request.”  “But, notably, [plaintiff] did not file suit based on that request.” “[Plaintiff] submitted a second FOIA request to the TSC in June 2022.”  “This request was also forwarded to RIDS for processing.”  “On July 26, 2022, the FBI responded that it had reopened [plaintiff’s] original request and conducted a new search, but it informed [plaintiff] that it still had nothing to provide.”  “[Plaintiff] had ninety days from July 26, 2022 to file an administrative appeal with the Department of Justice’s Office of Information Policy, . . . but he did not.”  “Instead, [plaintiff] filed suit in March 2024.”  “The court acknowledges that the FBI did not raise administrative exhaustion in its motion for summary judgment, . . . but it did raise the defense in its answer . . . .”  “In view of the fact that administrative exhaustion poses jurisprudential questions about the availability of judicial review of [plaintiff’s] FOIA claims, the court considers the issue sufficiently preserved for consideration.”  “The court concludes that the purposes of exhaustion support a bar here.”  “[Plaintiff] was on notice that the FBI’s RIDS had processed his May 2022 FOIA request directed at the TSC because it expressly told him so.”  “If [plaintiff] believed that this request should have been handled by the TSC directly, [plaintiff] could have and should have raised the issue in an administrative appeal.”  “[Plaintiff’s] failure to put the agency on notice of his objections denied ‘the agency an opportunity to respond’ and precludes judicial review.”