Moon v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 15-3751 (8th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Plaintiff, a former federal inmate, appealed the district court’s preservice dismissal of his action seeking relief under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552. The court concluded that, while it agrees that a litigant must exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a FOIA action in federal court, because FOIA is silent as to whether exhaustion is a pleading requirement or an affirmative defense, the argument of non-exhaustion is an affirmative defense rather than a pleading requirement. Therefore, plaintiff was not required to plead exhaustion in his complaint. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Benton, Arnold and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Freedom of Information Act. The district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's FOIA action for failure to exhaust as FOIA is silent as to whether exhaustion is a pleading requirement or an affirmative defense; if an act is silent on this question, the general practice is to treat it as an affirmative defense, and it was error to dismiss for failing to plead exhaustion; the matter is remanded for further proceedings. [ April 27, 2016

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-3751 ___________________________ Darnell Wesly Moon lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Federal Bureau of Prisons lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau ____________ Submitted: April 14, 2016 Filed: April 28, 2016 [Published] ____________ Before BENTON, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Darnell Moon, formerly a federal inmate at the United States Penitentiary at Terre Haute, Indiana, appeals the district court’s preservice dismissal of his action seeking relief under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552. We grant his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. While we agree that a litigant must exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a FOIA action in federal court, see Elnashar v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 446 F.3d 792, 796 (8th Cir. 2006) (exhaustion of administrative remedies is prerequisite to bringing suit under FOIA), we conclude that because FOIA is silent as to whether exhaustion is a pleading requirement or an affirmative defense, see 5 U.S.C. § 552, the argument of non-exhaustion is an affirmative defense rather than a pleading requirement, see Jones v. Bock, 127 S.Ct. 910, 919 (2007) (if an act is silent as to whether exhaustion should be pled by plaintiff or treated as affirmative defense, general practice under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dictates that exhaustion should be treated as affirmative defense). Thus, Mr. Moon was not required to plead exhaustion in his complaint. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. ______________________________ -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.