FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
JUN - 4 2010
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk. U.S. District & Bankruptcy
Courts for the District of Columbia
Lester Jon Ruston, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 10 0917
)
Federal Bureau of Prisons, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and
application for leave to proceed in Jorma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is
required to dismiss a complaint upon a determination that it, among other grounds, fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Plaintiff is a "civil detainee" at the United States Medical Center in Springfield, Missouri,
Compl. at 1, having been found not guilty by reason of insanity for threatening to assault and
murder a federal magistrate judge. See United States v. Ruston, 565 F.3d 892, 894 (5 th Cir.
2009). He sues the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"),
5 U.S.C. § 552, for allegedly failing to respond to his FOIA "Request Number 2008-01703."
Compl. at 2. Yet, plaintiff attaches BOP's response of November 23,2007, informing him that it
could not process the request because he had not provided "either proper authorization or
sufficient information to identify the individual whose records you seek," and that the request
therefore was "considered closed." Ex. 1 (response letter). The letter indicates that "a form
DOJ-361, Certification ofldentity" was enclosed, the completion of which "should provide the
information [BOP] need[ed] to proceed." Id.
Plaintiff attaches to this complaint a "Certificate of Identity" dated April 17, 2010, but he
does not state that he completed such a form and returned it to the agency in response to the letter
of November 23, 2007. Instead, plaintiff makes wild, unsubstantiated allegations of a conspiracy
involving United States District Judge Ricardo Urbina of this Court and other individuals not
named in this action.! See CompI. at 3-4. In any event, the Court's jurisdiction under the FOIA
extends only to claims arising from the improper withholding of agency records. 5 U.S.C. §
552(a)(4)(B); McGehee v. CIA, 697 F.2d 1095, 1105 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (citation omitted). An
agency's obligation to produce responsive records, however, is triggered by its receipt of a
request that "(i) reasonably describes such records and (ii) is made in accordance with published
rules[.]" 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A). Because plaintiff failed to submit a proper FOIA request, no
improper withholding has occurred regarding the subject request. A separate Order of dismissal
accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
LIe. JIltM./~
United States District Judge
Date: May i!/.-, 2010
! See Ruston v. United States, Civ. Action No. 10-805, Mem. Op. filed May 17,2010, at
2 n.2 (noting that the dismissal as frivolous "is consistent with Ruston's history of delusional
thinking") (citing cases).
2