Buholtz v. United States Marshals Service, 233 F. Supp. 3d 113

Kenneth Buholtz, pro se, sought medical, phone, and disciplinary records from his incarceration at Fannin County Detention Center, a U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) contract jail.
In June 2014 Buholtz submitted a FOIA request; USMS produced 50 pages (with limited redactions) and referred one page to EOUSA; Buholtz appealed late and OIP denied the appeal as untimely.
After OIP’s denial, Buholtz submitted follow-up FOIA requests (Jan–Jun 2015) asking USMS for inmate phone, medical, and disciplinary records from the Fannin facility; USMS replied that those records were under Fannin County’s jurisdiction.
USMS moved for summary judgment arguing it did not possess or control the requested records and therefore had no FOIA obligation to produce them or to procure them from the county jail.
The court granted USMS’s motion, holding the Fannin jail records were not "agency records" under FOIA and that FOIA does not require an agency to compile or retrieve records from third parties.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the requested jail records are "agency records" under FOIA	Buholtz contended records should be obtainable from USMS because the facility was a USMS contract jail	USMS argued it neither created nor controlled the jail’s records; they were maintained by Fannin County	Court held records were not agency records: USMS did not create, obtain, or control them
Whether USMS must procure or retrieve records from the contract jail on plaintiff's behalf	Buholtz argued USMS could/should contact the jail and obtain the records	USMS argued FOIA does not impose an obligation to compile or procure records from third parties	Court held FOIA imposes no duty to retrieve documents from third parties; agency need not compile or procure records
Timeliness of administrative appeal and effect on relief	Buholtz filed an administrative appeal after the 60‑day deadline, sought further agency action	USMS/OIP pointed to untimely appeal and instructed Buholtz to make new requests to USMS	OIP denied the appeal as untimely; court noted plaintiff could submit new requests but did not disturb the denial

U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136 (1989) (establishes that documents are "agency records" only if created/obtained and controlled by the agency)
Forsham v. Harris, 445 U.S. 169 (1980) (discusses limits on FOIA obligations to produce third‑party materials)
Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136 (1980) (FOIA does not require agencies to compile or procure records)
Burka v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 87 F.3d 508 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (agency control factors relevant to treating third‑party materials as agency records)
SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (standards for agency affidavits in FOIA summary judgment)
Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (requirements for agency declarations and exemptions)
Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, 715 F.3d 937 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (affirms weight given to adequate, non‑conclusory agency declarations)