The opinion
FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FEB 26 2009
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NANIY MAYER WI;UTTINGTON, ClERK
U.S. DISTPlI&T COURT
Mark L. Neff, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 0'9 fJ386
)
)
Roger E. Walker, Jr., et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and application
to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will be
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring dismissal of a prisoner's complaint upon a
determination that the complaint, among other grounds, fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted).
Plaintiff, an inmate at the United States Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana, sues the
Director and the Freedom of Information Act Officer of the Illinois Department of Corrections
("DOC") under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that in response to his Freedom oflnformation
Act ("FOIA") request for a document, DOC referred him to the Illinois Prisoner Review Board,
which, in tum, has not responded to his request. Section 1983 authorizes a cause of action
against state actors who deprive individuals of "any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by
the Constitution and [federal] laws." Id. The federal FOIA applies only to executive-branch
agencies of the United States. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(f) (defining agency as "any executive
department. .. Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other
establishment in the executive branch of the Government ... , or any independent regulatory
agency"). The state officials therefore may not be held liable for what at best would be a
violation of federal law. I Plaintiff s recourse lies, if at all, in the Illinois state courts under the
Illinois FOIA. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: February ~, 2009 United States District Judge
I The comprehensive nature of the federal FOIA forecloses a claim against individuals
under § 1983. See Johnson v. Executive Office for United States Attorneys, 310 F.3d 771, 777
(D.C. Cir. 2002).
2