Cunningham v. O'Neill
953 F. Supp. 2d 267
D.D.C.2013Background
- In 2005 U.S. Deputy Marshals searched Benjamin Cunningham’s NYC residence looking for his brother; Cunningham was seized, fled handcuffed, was struck or sideswiped by a bus, then detained by transit officers until marshals verified his identity and released him.
- Cunningham sued the individual Deputy U.S. Marshals and a NYPD detective in SDNY for constitutional violations; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants and the Second Circuit dismissed his appeal as frivolous.
- Cunningham filed this FOIA action pro se against multiple individual federal officials (including DOJ, SDNY judges, AUSAs, a Deputy U.S. Marshal, an FBI agent, and several congressional actors), alleging they concealed records and invented a confidential informant to defeat his prior civil rights suit; he sought $50,000,000.
- Defendants moved to dismiss. The district court considered whether FOIA can be enforced against individual federal officials rather than agencies.
- The court dismissed the complaint because FOIA provides remedies only against federal agencies (executive-branch entities), not individual employees or officials, and several named defendants are in the judicial or legislative branches—outside FOIA’s coverage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether individuals can be sued under FOIA for withholding records | Cunningham alleged individual federal officials willfully concealed records and violated FOIA | Defendants argued FOIA relief is available only against agencies, not individuals | Court: FOIA applies to agencies only; individuals are not proper defendants, so claim dismissed |
| Whether defendants fall within FOIA’s definition of “agency” | Cunningham treated named officials as subject to FOIA | Defendants noted several are judges or congressional actors outside executive branch | Court: Many defendants are outside executive branch; FOIA does not cover judicial or legislative officials |
| Whether the complaint states a viable claim despite pro se status | Cunningham proceeded pro se and claimed factual concealment affecting prior case | Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) | Court: Even construed liberally, complaint cannot succeed as a matter of law; sua sponte dismissal permissible |
| Relief sought (monetary damages) under FOIA | Cunningham sought $50,000,000 and injunctive relief | Defendants maintained FOIA jurisdiction and remedies do not permit suing individuals for damages in this manner | Court: Dismissed for failure to state a FOIA claim; other motions moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se complaints are to be liberally construed)
- United States v. Byfield, 391 F.3d 277 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
- Baker v. Director, U.S. Parole Comm’n, 916 F.2d 725 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (district court may sua sponte dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) when plaintiff cannot possibly prevail)
- Martinez v. Bureau of Prisons, 444 F.3d 620 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (individual federal employees are not proper FOIA defendants)