Jackson v. Hood

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT 0F COLUMBIA F I L E D ms - 2 2013 ) ¢, . _ DAVID JACKSON, ) c@§r'§§#;Fzh@'§l§§l§§?‘駑§lf’,‘?f§¥ ) l la Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. \ > \ ~'l ‘i` ‘i JIM HOOD, Attorney General ) g for the State of Mississippi, ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION According to the plaintiff, the Offlce of the Attorney General for the State of Mississippi refuses to produce certain public records pertaining to his criminal trial in response to his written request for such records under the Freedom of Inforrnation Act ("FOIA"), see 5 U.S.C. § 5 52. Compl. at 2; see id., Ex. E. He files "[t]his complaint . . . pursuant to 5 U.S.C.A. [§] 552(a)(4)(B) of the Freedom of Inforrnation Act." Compl. at 1. "[I]t is beyond question that FOIA applies only to federal and not to state agencies." Grand Cent. P ’ship, Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473, 484 (Zd Cir. 1999) (citations Omittcd); 5 U.S.C. § 55l(t) (defining the term "agency" for purposes of the FOIA). Mississippi’s Attorney General is not a federal entity to whom FOIA applies See, e.g., Sykes v. Unitea' States, 507 F. App’x 455, 463 (6th Cir. 2012) (affirming dismissal of FOIA claims against state university medical center); Moreno v. Curry, 2007 WL 4467580 , at * 1 (5th Cir. Dec. 20. 2008) (per curiam) (affirrning district court ruling that "FOIA, by its terms, does not apply to state or municipal agencies"); Martinson v. Drug Enforcement Admz`n., 1997 WL 634559 , at *l (D.C. Cir. Sept. 22, 1997) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of complaint against Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office because a state agency is not subject to the FOIA); Wz`llz`s v. U.S. Dep ’l of Jusrz'ce, 581 F. Supp. 2d 57, 67-698 (D.D.C. 2008) (dismissing claims against Missouri Police Department, which is not a federal agency subject to FOlA or the Privacy Act). Accordingly, The Court will dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted An Order is issued separately. DATE; ?z%‘ -¢Z»’~ 7 ~ United States District J e