Court Finds No FOIA Violation
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
0 comments:
Post a Comment