United States District Court, D. Columbia.
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
MARIA AGOLLI, Plaintiff, Pro se, Washington, DC.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. Department of Justice,
Headquaters; U.S. Department of Justice, Washington Field
Office, Defendant: Jodi George, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S.
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
KOLLAR-KOTELLY, United States District Judge.
Anna Maria Agolli filed suit against the Office of Inspector
General (" OIG" ) of the United States Department
of Justice (" DOJ" ), challenging the agency's
handling of certain Freedom of Information Act ("
FOIA" ) requests that she had filed, which appear to
pertain to a complaint that she had previously filed with
OIG. At the outset, the Court notes that, in Defendant's
 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and for
Summary Judgment, which is now before the Court, Defendant
construed Plaintiff's complaint--which is far from a
modicum of clarity--as containing only FOIA claims.
In her Opposition to Defendant's motion, Plaintiff states
that she is not only bringing this action under FOIA but
under " any applicable law" because she is seeking
damages in this action. Pls.' Mem. of Points &
Authorities, ECF No. 27, at 1. Plaintiff acknowledges that
money damages--which she seeks--are not available under FOIA,
but indicates no other basis for damages in relation to a
FOIA request. Moreover, insofar as Plaintiff purports to
challenge the handling of the underlying complaint previously
filed with OIG--rather than the agency's subsequent
handling of the FOIA requests--Plaintiff identifies no legal
basis for doing so or for seeking damages with respect to any
such claim. With this understanding, the Court addresses
Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and for summary judgment. In that motion,
Defendant argues that this Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over all but one of the claims in
Plaintiff's complaint because Plaintiff failed to file
this action within the six-year statute of limitations for
FOIA claims. With respect to the remaining claim, regarding
Plaintiff's 2014 FOIA request, Defendant argues that
summary judgment is warranted because the agency adequately
responded to that request.
consideration of the pleadings, the relevant legal
authorities, and the record
as a whole, the Court GRANTS Defendant's  Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and for Summary Judgment.
The Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over all of Plaintiff's claims other than the claim
regarding the 2014 FOIA request because Plaintiff failed to
file this action within the six-year jurisdictional statute
of limitations for FOIA claims. With respect to the final
claim--regarding the 2014 FOIA request--the Court concludes
that summary judgment for the agency is warranted. Insofar as
Plaintiff purports to bring any other claims in this action,
those are dismissed as well. The Court dismisses this case in
20, 2006, Plaintiff submitted to OIG a 25-page FOIA request
that requested all OIG documents pertaining to
Plaintiff. Declaration of Marie Waller,
Government Information Specialist and FOIA Officer, Office of
the Inspector General (" Waller Decl." ), ECF No.
20-1, ¶ 6. OIG conducted an electronic search of its
records stored in its investigations case management system
to determine whether the agency had any documents responsive
to Plaintiff's request. Id. ¶ 7. Based on
its search, OIG located only one document that it considered
responsive to Plaintiff's request--the OIG complaint form
associated with Plaintiff's initial complaint--other than
the documents that Plaintiff herself submitted to the agency.
Id. By letter dated June 22, 2006, OIG released the
complaint form to Plaintiff. See Waller Decl., Ex.
2. The released form was redacted in order to withhold the
name of the law enforcement officer who received information
from Plaintiff and who prepared the complaint form. See
the agency's response to Plaintiff's FOIA request, a
series of administrative appeals ensued:
o Plaintiff filed her first administrative appeal to the DOJ
Office of Information Policy (" OIP" ) on August
18, 2006 (Appeal No. 06-2846). Declaration of Priscilla
Jones, Supervisory Administrative Specialist, Office of DOJ
Information Policy (" Jones Decl." ), ECF No. 20-2,
o By letter dated November 28, 2006--apparently independent
of the pending appeal--OIG released in full Plaintiff's
initial FOIA request to her. See Waller Decl. ¶
o By letter issued December 18, 2006, OIP directed OIG to
release all documents Plaintiff sent to the agency and
affirmed the agency's decision to withhold the name of
the law enforcement agent. See id., Ex. 4. (December
18, 2006, letter from OIP).
o On or about January 26, 2007, Plaintiff filed a second
administrative appeal (Appeal No. 07-0560) with respect to
the OIG's response dated November 28, 2006. Jones Decl.
¶ 4. OIP responded to that appeal on or about February
23, 2007, remanding to OIG for an additional search.
Id. ¶ . On September 7, 2007, OIG provided to
Plaintiff--without redactions--407 pages of documents that
Plaintiff submitted to OIG. Waller Decl. ¶ 13.
o Plaintiff attempted to file a third administrative appeal
on or about November 5, 2007, with respect to OIG's
September 7, 2007, response (Appeal No. 08-0238). Jones Decl.
¶ 5. OIP closed this appeal as a duplicate on or about
November 7, 2007, without sending a response to Plaintiff.
OIG's response to Plaintiff sent in September 2007, OIG
did not receive any new appeals remanded from OIP pertaining
to Plaintiff, and OIG did not receive any new FOIA requests
from Plaintiff. Waller Decl. ¶ 19.
9, 2014, Plaintiff submitted a FOIA request to OIP via letter
which requested all correspondence between her and OIP.
Declaration of Vanessa R. Brinkmann (" Brinkmann
Decl." ), ECF No. 20-3, ¶ 3, Ex. A. In response to
Plaintiff's request, OIP conducted a search of its
FOIA/Privacy Act tracking systems, using the search term
" Agolli," between 1987 and the date of the search.
Id. ¶ 5. As a result of the search, OIP located
four administrative appeals, including the three
aforementioned appeals and an appeal closed on July 7, 2003
(AP-2003-01872 (FBI)). Id. The agency discovered
that, due to the age of those files, they had been destroyed
" in accordance with the applicable records retention
schedules." Id. Because Plaintiff specifically
mentioned that she had corresponded with Michael Sherman, a
former OIP employee, OIP also conducted a search of
Sherman's e-mail archives using the search term "
Agolli." Id. ¶ 6. OIP located 37 pages of
e-mail correspondence between Sherman and Plaintiff.
Id. By letter dated October 24, 2014, OIP provided a
final response to Plaintiff's FOIA request, providing the
37-pages of the e-mail correspondence with Sherman, without
redaction. Id. OIP also informed Plaintiff that the
contents of her previous appeals had been destroyed in
accordance with the applicable records retention schedules
and that copies of the correspondence maintained as part of
those records were no longer available. Id. ¶
8, Ex. C.
filed this action on June 6, 2014. Subsequently, Defendant
filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and for summary judgment. That ...