Opinion
02 Civ. 658 (MGC)
September 13, 2002
FRANCISCO D. CRISCI, New York, NY, Pro Se.
JAMES B. COMEY, ESQ., United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, MICHAEL C. JAMES, ESQ., New York, NY, Attorneys for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is a suit for alleged violation of the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted for the reasons that follow.
The complaint alleges that plaintiff Francisco Crisci sent several letters and made several phone calls to the Department of Justice and the FBI seeking documents related to an alleged investigation by the FBI of a complaint allegedly filed against him. In one of the letters, he described the alleged complaint as having been filed with "the 10th Street Police Station located at W. 20th Street in NYC, NY." The record shows that the FBI conducted a search and found nothing about Crisci except a file that cross-referenced a telephone call by Crisci to the FBI's Brooklyn-Queens Resident Agency complaining that someone had posted pictures of him without his permission on an internet website bearing his name.
In a letter dated September 28, 2001, the Office of Information and Privacy informed plaintiff that the "Department of Justice has no jurisdiction over requests made pursuant to state law for state or local records." Since plaintiff was seeking records of a complaint filed with the New York City Police Department, the Office of Information and Privacy advised him to pursue this matter with the Attorney General of the State of New York.
In opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment, plaintiff has not submitted any basis for his belief that the FBI has any records pertaining to a complaint filed against him with the New York City Police. Defendant complied with plaintiff's requests for a search of its records, and was unable to find any paper relating to an investigation of plaintiff.
Where there are no material facts in dispute, a motion for summary judgment should be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). "Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment . . . against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Zelotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). "In such a situation, there can be `no genuine issue as to any material fact,' since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial."Id. at 322-23. In deciding whether a genuine issue exists, a court must "examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and resolve ambiguities and draw reasonable inferences against the moving party." In re Chateaugay Corp., 10 F.3d 944, 957 (2d Cir. 1993).
Plaintiff has not raised any factual dispute and has not shown that he can prove the essential element of his case, i.e., that the FBI did not comply with his FOIA request. Accordingly, defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted.
SO ORDERED.