Marker v. Cardona, No. 23-05873, 2023 WL 8007109 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2023) (Corley, J.)

Marker v. Cardona, No. 23-05873, 2023 WL 8007109 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2023) (Corley, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning plaintiff’s student loans

Disposition:  Dismissing plaintiff’s compliant with leave to amend

• Litigation Considerations, Pleadings:  First, the court holds that “‘[i]ndividual officials are not proper defendants in a FOIA action.’”  “So, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against [defendant], as he is an ‘individual officer.’”  “Plaintiff is instructed that she should sue the agency, not any individual member of that agency, if she is seeking to bring a FOIA claim.”
  
  Second, the court finds that “Plaintiff has not pled that she has exhausted administrative remedies.  Plaintiff pleads she ‘appealed the absence of a response,’ but does not plead what Defendant’s response was to that appeal, or otherwise describe how she appealed the response.”  “Later on, Plaintiff pleads ‘Plaintiff has exhausted its administrative appeal remedy.’”  “However, Plaintiff does not plead any facts about the administrative appeal process.”  “The Court advises Plaintiff to include more details about her administrative appeals process, and the outcome of that process, in any future complaint.” 
  
  “Further, Plaintiff’s complaint is vague as to what information she believes is missing from the agency’s response.”  “Plaintiff pleads ‘Defendant then emailed Plaintiff a letter in response, failing to explain what remained would be physically mailed on a CD-R which was received September 6, 2022, and for which home technology disallowed access.’”  “However, Plaintiff does not state whether she requested the data in any particular format – for example, if she requested the data via an email as opposed to a CD-ROM.”  “The Court advises Plaintiff to provide more information about how she requested this information and her response to receiving the CD-ROM in any future complaint.”