Burke v. Department of Justice, Civ. A. No. 75-336-C3.
| Citation | 432 F. Supp. 251 |
| Decision Date | 22 September 1976 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 75-336-C3. |
| Parties | Robert T. BURKE, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE and Federal Bureau of Investigation, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Robert T. Burke, pro se.
E. Edward Johnson, U. S. Atty., Mary K. Briscoe, Ass't U. S. Atty., D. Kansas, Topeka, Kan., Leonard Schaitman, Mark H. Gallant, Jeffrey Axelrad, Richard E. Greenspan, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Gen. Litigation, Civ. Div., Washington, D. C., for defendants.
The instant Freedom of Information Act litigation is now before the Court for determination of the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The defendants argue that the only relief available to the plaintiff under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) is an order directing the production of the records sought; that the defendants have agreed to furnish said records to the plaintiff upon his payment of the costs of reproduction; and that because no further controversy exists between the parties, the Court is ousted of subject matter jurisdiction and is obligated to dismiss the pending action. The plaintiff, on the other hand, claims that the action is not moot and that subject matter jurisdiction is not divested, because the Court has authority to award him the reasonable costs of the instant litigation including attorney's fees and the cost of reproducing the documents sought.
It does appear that the principal controversy here, i.e., whether the defendants must produce the photographic material sought by the plaintiff, has been mooted by the defendants' decision to comply with the plaintiff's request. The Court finds that the defendants' voluntary compliance does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action or bar further proceedings herein, yet it appears that the sole issue remaining for determination is whether the plaintiff should be entitled to recover the reasonable costs, if any, incurred in the prosecution of this action.
The plaintiff's contention that the Court has jurisdiction to award him the cost of reproducing the materials sought or to order the defendants to "defray" such costs is legally erroneous. Under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A), the defendant agencies are entitled to recover the "direct costs" of document search and duplication through the imposition of "reasonable standard charges" upon the person requesting such information. An agency may, in its discretion, waive or reduce that charge if it determines that "furnishing the information can be considered as primarily benefiting the general public." The Freedom of Information Act does not, however, empower a federal court to control the exercise of administrative discretion by directing an agency to waive or reduce the fees authorized by statute in a particular case; nor does it make any allowance for awarding the cost of reproduction to a prevailing plaintiff in an action brought under 5 U.S.C. § 552.
Section 552(a)(4)(E) does provide that where a complainant has "substantially prevailed" in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, the Court may assess against the United States "reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred" by the plaintiff. The plaintiff here was clearly authorized to institute this action by the express language of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C), in spite of the fact that the defendants had not completed administrative review of his request for prosecution and inspection of records. The Court finds that the plaintiff has "substantially prevailed" in this action; that he is entitled to an opportunity to persuade the Court that he should be allowed reimbursement for any actual, reasonable costs of litigation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Donahue v. Thomas
...Davis v. Parratt, supra note 12, 608 F.2d 717; Burke v. United States Dep't of Justice, 559 F.2d 1182 (10th Cir.1977), affg., 432 F.Supp. 251 (D.Kan.1976); Hannon v. Security Nat'l Bank, 537 F.2d 327 (9th Cir.1976). (The cases cited in support of the court's holding in Wolfel, supra, were d......
-
Laracey v. Financial Institutions Bureau, Docket No. 93993
...(CA 3, 1981); Clarkson v. IRS, 678 F.2d 1368 (CA 11, 1982); Burke v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 559 F.2d 1182 (CA 10, 1977), aff'g 432 F.Supp. 251 (D.Kan., 1976); Crooker v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 632 F.2d 916 (CA 1, 1980). Cf. Cox v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 195 U.S.App.D.C. 189, 601 F.2d 1 (197......
-
Crooker v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
...are sufficiently overcome by awarding those "litigation costs actually incurred." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E); see Burke v. Dep't of Justice, 432 F.Supp. 251, 253 (D.Kan.1976); aff'd, 559 F.2d 1182 (10th Cir. 1977); cf. Davis v. Parratt, 608 F.2d at 718. By awarding the pro se litigant costs, h......
-
Barrett v. Bureau of Customs
...327 (9th Cir. 1976) (Truth in Lending Act); Burke v. United States Dept. of Justice, 559 F.2d 1182 (10th Cir. 1977) (FOIA), aff'g 432 F.Supp. 251 (D.Kan.1976). We very recently declined to award a pro se litigant attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 in Cofield v. City of Atlanta, 648 F.2d 9......