Hull v. United States Attorney, Civil Action No. 2016-2415

Background

Plaintiff Daniel Hull, pro se, seeks production of "all discovery documents" from his 2002 federal criminal case, claiming they will show he is actually innocent of an assault used to enhance his sentence.
Hull originally filed a civil "demand for discovery" naming the U.S. Attorney (Western District of Wisconsin) and the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA); attachments show he submitted FOIA requests to EOUSA in 2013.
Hull also filed a separate Motion to Compel Discovery seeking Bureau of Prisons records about an unrelated 2010 prison incident; the Court denied that motion because BOP was not a defendant and the complaint did not concern the 2010 events.
EOUSA (via declaration of John Kornmeier) acknowledges responding to Hull’s FOIA request with a partial release and asserts Hull did not administratively appeal; Hull admits receiving some records but says he did not file an appeal because he believed no further records existed.
The Court construed Hull’s complaint, liberally, as a FOIA suit seeking additional EOUSA records but raised the issue that Hull appears not to have exhausted administrative remedies and ordered briefing on whether the case should be dismissed for failure to exhaust.
The Court treated defendants’ filing as a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, gave Hull a final opportunity to oppose on exhaustion grounds, and set deadlines for supplemental briefing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff stated a federal discovery entitlement separate from a FOIA cause of action	Hull seeks documents as discovery to establish innocence; frames complaint as a demand for discovery	Defendants argue complaint resembles a FOIA request, not a freestanding discovery entitlement	Court held discovery is not a freestanding claim; construed complaint as a FOIA suit rather than Rule 37 discovery action
Whether Hull exhausted administrative remedies under FOIA	Hull admits EOUSA responded but did not administratively appeal because he believed no more records existed	EOUSA asserts it partially released records and Hull did not file an administrative appeal, so he failed to exhaust	Court found exhaustion generally required, noted Hull appears not to have appealed, and ordered further briefing before deciding dismissal
Whether the Court should excuse exhaustion and proceed to judicial review	Hull argues response was unresponsive and thus implied no need to appeal	Defendants rely on Kornmeier declaration that EOUSA responded and no appeal was filed; they urge dismissal	Court declined to decide on current record; explained exhaustion is not jurisdictional but dismissal may be appropriate if exhaustion serves its purposes; ordered supplemental submissions to resolve the question
Whether Hull’s Motion to Compel records about the 2010 incident should be granted	Hull sought BOP investigative reports to support a Rule 35 sentencing reduction	Defendants note BOP is custodian and was not named as defendant; records relate to different matters than complaint	Court denied the motion for those 2010 records and advised Hull to pursue a separate FOIA action against BOP if appropriate

Key Cases Cited

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (pro se complaints are construed liberally)
Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (administrative appeal required when agency responds to FOIA request)
Hidalgo v. FBI, 344 F.3d 1256 (exhaustion is not jurisdictional; courts may proceed in limited circumstances)
Wilbur v. CIA, 355 F.3d 675 (permitting judicial review despite missed appeal can serve exhaustion policies)
Nat’l Sec. Counselors v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 848 F.3d 467 (exhaustion purpose analysis may counsel hearing claims where co-plaintiffs exhausted)
Ryan v. Bentsen, 12 F.3d 245 (articulating purposes of exhaustion doctrine)
Bayala v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Office of Gen. Counsel, 827 F.3d 31 (exhaustion treated as element of a FOIA claim)