An inmate submitted an “inmate
request/grievance form” to a county sheriff’s office (Sheriff), stating that
the inmate was “requesting to talk with: FOIA/Legal/Dietary,” regarding a
“Request for Preservation.” The inmate attached a
list seeking nutritional information for food served at the
jail. In response, the Sheriff disclosed several records responsive to the
request within the Sheriff’s possession or custody.
In January 2024, the inmate
filed a lawsuit claiming the Sheriff violated FOIA by failing to comply
with his request. The circuit court dismissed the case finding that (1) the inmate
request did not seek “public records” as defined by FOIA but instead asked the Sheriff to preserve items and prepare data, which was improper
under FOIA, (2) the Sheriff did not deny the inmate’s FOIA request because it
disclosed all responsive records in its possession, (3) disclosing records did
not waive the Sheriff’s argument there was never a valid FOIA request, and (4)
even if the Sheriff’s response was untimely, there was no relief the court
could provide and there was no willful or intentional lack of compliance by the
Sheriff.
After the inmate appealed, an Illinois Appellate Court upheld the dismissal of the case in McBroom
v. Logan County Sheriff’s Office.
First, the Appellate Court held that portions of the inmate's request did constitute a valid FOIA request where (1) the inmate directed his request to “FOIA,” (2) the
request sought specific documents allegedly maintained by the Sheriff, and (3) the
Sheriff interpreted the request as a FOIA request and forwarded the request to
the Sheriff’s FOIA officer.
Second, to the extent the inmate's request asked for general information/data, answers to questions, or requesting the Sheriff to create new records, those requests were outside of FOIA and the Court held that the Sheriff
was not required to comply with those requests.
Third, the Court found that the inmate failed to
provide a counter affidavit or other evidence to counter the FOIA officer’s
affidavit that the office had provided all responsive records.
Fourth, the Court rejected the inmate's argument that the Sheriff failed to timely
respond to his request, finding that the Sheriff received the request on
February 1, 2023, and responded to the request on February 7, 2023, within the five business day FOIA time-frame. The Court noted that even if the Sheriff’s response was untimely, once the Sheriff disclosed its responsive
records to the request, the inmate’s claim for records already disclosed was
moot.
Finally, the Court
held that the Sheriff did not willfully or intentionally fail to
comply with FOIA so the inmate
was not entitled to civil penalties or attorneys' fees.
Post Authored by Eugene Bolotnikov & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink
