This page was read by OCR. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
Case 3:22-cv-00134-JAG-MRC Document 26 Filed 12/22/22 Page 9 of 12 PagelD# 138
Accordingly, Claims One through Four, Six (a) and (c), Seven, and Eight will be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because they are improperly joined. Defendants
Armstrong, Morgan, Vergakis, Walker, Hughes, and Petitfere are dismissed from the action
because the claims against them are improperly joined. Thus, the action proceeds solely on Claim
Five against Defendants Chandler, Murray, and Evans, and Claim Six (a) against Defendant
Chandler to which the Court now turns.
Vv. | CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT CHANDLER
A. Freedom of Information Act
In Claim Five, Melby alleges that Defendants Chandler, Murray, and Evans violated the
Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”)® when they refused to provide Melby with Chandler’s or
Evans’s badge number. (ECF No. 23, at 11; see id. at 1-2.) FOIA requires federal agencies to
“make their internal records available to the public upon request.” Coleman v. Drug Enforcement
Admin. , 714 F.3d 816, 818 (4th Cir. 2013). FOIA, however, does not apply to state or local entities.
Ladearious v. Goldsmith, No. 3:13-cv-673, 2015 WL 1787297, at *3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 15, 2015)
(citations omitted). Therefore, to the extent that Melby raises a claim under FOIA, he fails to state
aclaim for relief.
Melby also indicates that these defendants are “legally responsible due to statutory
authority § 2.2-3704” and “§ 2.2-3706” or sections of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act
(‘Virginia FOIA”). (ECF No. 23, at 11); see Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-3700 et seq. (Va. 2022).
However, to prevail on a § 1983 claim, Melby “must show that (1) [he was] deprived of a federal
statutory or constitutional right; and (2) the deprivation was committed under color of state law.”
§ SUS.C. § 552.
Jump to an indexed page (12 of 12)