Rutila v. United States Department of Transportation, 3:16-cv-02911

Pro se plaintiff Harold Rutila filed two consolidated FOIA suits against DOT/FAA challenging agency responses to ten FOIA requests (Rutila I and Rutila II).
Rutila I challenged seven requests (e.g., emails, SOPs, evaluation logs); three of those (9143, 9145, 9192) disputed exemptions, others mainly alleged inadequate searches.
Rutila II challenged three requests; FAA treated two as improper or non-record requests and produced documents for the third; plaintiff appealed administratively.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(6), arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because plaintiff failed to allege improper withholding of records and some requests were improper or fully satisfied.
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of all claims except those tied to requests 9143, 9145, and 9192, concluding plaintiff repeatedly alleged only inadequate searches rather than improper withholding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court has SMJ over FOIA claims alleging inadequate searches	Rutila: administrative appeals and complaint sufficiently notified FAA and allege inadequate searches warranting review	FAA: FOIA jurisdiction requires allegation of improper withholding of agency records, not merely complaints about search adequacy	Held: No SMJ for claims that only allege inadequate searches; inadequate-search allegations alone fail to show improper withholding, so dismissed
Whether specific requests were properly made or exhausted administratively (Rutila II requests 0862, 1174)	Rutila: requests were proper and he exhausted his remedies	FAA: requests were improper; plaintiff did not make valid FOIA requests/no exhaustion	Held: Claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because plaintiff did not establish improper withholding or proper request/exhaustion
Whether FAA’s production to request 0803 left any withheld records	Rutila: FAA response improper; pattern/practice allegations support jurisdiction	FAA: produced all responsive documents; no withholding	Held: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction—no alleged improper withholding
Which individual exemption disputes may proceed	Rutila: disputes exemptions asserted for some requests (notably 9143, 9145, 9192)	FAA: did not contest allowing those exemption disputes to proceed	Held: Jurisdiction exists for claims disputing exemptions for requests 9143, 9145, and 9192; all other claims dismissed

Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 2001) (consider jurisdictional attack before merits on combined Rule 12 motions)
Den Norske Stats Oljeselskap As v. HeereMac Vof, 241 F.3d 420 (5th Cir. 2001) (court may consider complaint plus undisputed or disputed facts on jurisdiction)
Goldgar v. Office of Admin., Exec. Office of the President, 26 F.3d 32 (5th Cir. 1994) (FOIA jurisdiction requires plaintiff show agency improperly withheld records)
Kissinger v. Reporters Comm’n for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1980) (scope of FOIA jurisdictional showing)
U.S. Dept. of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1989) (definition of improperly withheld records in FOIA context)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S. 2007) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed)
Bangoura v. U.S. Dept. of Army, 607 F. Supp. 2d 134 (D.D.C. 2009) (district court may order production of records improperly withheld under FOIA)
Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (standards and consequences for failing to file specific objections to magistrate judge recommendations)